1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Superintending Engineer on 14.6.2018 and by the Statutory Arbitral Tribunal on 1.10.2018 constituted under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short "the Act"). The Superintending Engineer found that a sum of Rs. 492.72 lacs is due and payable by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in Writ Petition No. 17070/2018 [M/s NKG Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh] which was withdrawn on 17.9.2018.

2. Admittedly, thereafter, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of statutory arbitration under the Act. In that proceedings, the petitioner filed an application for grant of stay of recovery which was declined by the Arbitral Tribunal on 1.10.2018 as there is prohibition for issuing of stay under section 17-A of the Act. The order of the Tribunal reads as under :

"The petitioner's counsel submitting an application under section 17-A of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to the 'Act') (I.A.No.1) has made a prayer for issuing stay order against the respondents for recovery amounting to Rs. 4.92 Crore but without giving opportunity of hearing to the respondents, no ex-parte order as prayed by the petitioner can be passed against the respondents because there is prohibition for issuing stay order under section 17-A of the Act which reads as under :

"[17-A Inherent Powers.- Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Tribunal to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal :

Provided that no interim order by way of injunction, stay or attachment before award shall be granted :

Provided further that the Tribunal shall have no power to review the award including the interim award.

On payment of process fee within seven days, by registered A.D. notices be issued to the respondents with the direction to submit their written statement with supporting documents and file the reply of I.A.No.1.

List on 10.12.2018 for submission of the respondents' written statement with supporting documents and the reply of I.A.No.1.

C.C. be issued today to the petitioner as per Rule."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment reported as (2002) 5 SCC 521 (Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, U.P. and others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another), to contend that even if the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant an ad-interim order but this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass an order of stay. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the following paragraph of the said judgment :

"12. Mr Sunil Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the remedy before the Tribunal under the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act is wholly illusory inasmuch as the Tribunal has no power to grant an interim order. Therefore, he contends that the High Court ought not to have relegated the petitioner to a fresh proceeding before the said Tribunal. We do not agree with these arguments of the learned counsel. When the statute has provided for the constitution of a Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of a government servant, the fact that the Tribunal has no authority to grant an interim order is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal. In an appropriate case after entertaining the petitions by an aggrieved party if the Tribunal declines an interim order on the ground that it has no such power then it is possible that such aggrieved party can seek remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution but that is no ground to bypass the said Tribunal in the first instance itself. Having perused the impugned order, we find no infirmity whatsoever in the said order and the High Court was justified in directing the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. In the said view of t