Judgment :- K. Veeraswami C.J. Pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the Films Division, which is a Government department, and a private exhibitor of films, an award was made on a reference to arbitration. This award was quashed on a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The reason is to be found in the following excerpt from the order of learned Judge : "....... it is patently clear that the arbitrator had not followed the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's request to examine himself was rejected. His request to examine two officers of Film Division was not acceded to. Again, the request of the petitioner to examine a witness who was at Madras on commission was also rejected. The petitioner wanted to file some documents and prove them in a legal manner. But the arbitrator merely allowed him to produce them. This is not legal procedure. The document would have to be proved by the petitioner and he must allow himself to be cross-examined by the other side, in order to establish his case. This the arbitrator failed to do." * It was as if learned Judge was not aware the arbitrator was alive to the fact that he was not strictly bound by the rules of procedure followed in the Courts. But, obviously, the principle of natural justice should be followed. The arbitrator acts as a quasi-judicial body entrusted with the task of deciding between two contending view points which involve rights and liabilities. The order of the learned Judge is, therefore, correct. 2. It is, however, contended that under Art. 266 of the Constitution, no power lies in this Court to issue a rule against a private arbitrator. In support of this contention, our attention is invited to Engineering Mazdoor Sabha v. Hind Cycles Limited, That was a case of special leave under Art. 136(1) of the Constitution. The expression used in the Article is "Court or Tribunal". The Supreme Court was of the view that an arbitrator, acting under S.10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, could not, for purpose of Art. 136(1), be regard as a Tribunal. The Supreme Court was not concerned with the scope of Art. 226. The expression used in the Article is "Court or Tribunal". The Supreme Court was of the view that an arbitrator, acting under S.10A of the Industrial Disputes Act, could not, for purpose of Art. 136(1), be regard as a Tribunal. The Supreme Court was not concerned with the scope of Art. 226. But, as a matter of fact, there are observation to found in the judgment of the Supreme Court that the terminology of Art. 226 was much wider than that of Art. 136(1) and the Court pointed out that under Art. 266 of the Constitution, the Court has power to issue a direction to any persons or authority. That, in fact, is language used by Art. 226 itself. We may also observe that though once Courts were exercised over the limitation of the English writs no longer is it felt that those limitation need necessarily apply the wider concept of the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 3. We dismiss the appeal with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 100.