Timely objection to the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction is crucial; once an award is made, challenges based on jurisdiction are barred if not raised during proceedings.

1. By this petition under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, has challenged the order dated 6.12.2010 passed by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Tribunal") in Arbitration Reference No.112 of 1998.

2. The petitioner, a Government of Gujarat undertaking company, invited tender for canal related works contract. The petitioner accepted the contract of the respondent M/s. VI. Pandya for the works contract for distributaries for Block No.9 - A / 6 for earth work, brick lining and structure work estimated at Rs.3,48,28,105/-.
2.1 After the works contract was over, the respondent herein raised a dispute and filed Arbitration Reference No.112 of 1998 before the Tribunal claiming Rs.50,24,473/-. It is the case of the petitioner that after admission of the arbitration reference, it remained pending sine die before the Arbitration Tribunal. During the pendency of the arbitration reference, the Supreme Court decided Civil Appeal No.3746 of 2005 in the case of VIA. Tech Esher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P.S.E. Board and another, (2011) 13 SCC 261 , wherein it was held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Arbitration Act") covers all kinds of disputes relating to works contract and that the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gujarat Act") and the Arbitration Act can be harmonised by holding that the said Act only applies where there is no arbitration clause and it stands impliedly repealed by the Arbitration Act.
2.2 Thereafter, the present Arbitration Reference No.112 of 1998 was taken on board on 6.12.2010, and by an order of the same date, the Arbitration Tribunal held that the reference was squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of VA. Tech. Esher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P.S.E. Board (supra) and that the arbitration reference was not maintainable.
2.3 Since the Arbitration Tribunal had held that the reference was not maintainable before it, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause of the tender for appointment of sole arbitrator for deciding the disputes between the parties. By an order dated 24.6.2011 passed by this court in the petition under Arbitration Act No.25 of 2011, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Buch (Retired) was appointed as the sole arbitrator, who passed an award on 11.9.2012.
2.4 In the meanwhile, the Supreme Court, in the case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors , (2012) 3 SCC 495 , held that its earlier decision in the case of VA. Tech. Esher Wyass Flovel Ltd. v. M.P.S.E. Board to be per incuriam. It is in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court, that the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 6.12.2010 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal.

3. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that it is only the Arbitration Tribunal under the Gujarat Act which has the jurisdiction to decide the disputes raised before the learned Arbitrator. It was submitted that, therefore, the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is without jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Vijay Construction Co. v Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited rendered on 9.2.2018 in Letters Patent Appeal No.882 of 2017 wherein, it was held thus: -
"[13] Having regard to issue involved in t