Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. The Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board for short) has been constituted under Sec. 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act for short). Bharat Re-rolling Mills (Private) Limited. Bokaro Steel City is a private Company registered under the Companies Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Consumer) It entered into an agreement with the Board and the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Jaria Circle at Loyabad, signed the agreement on behalf of the Board, for supply of electric power. 2. The Consumer objected to payment of certain Annual Minimum Guarantee Charges bills for the year 1992-93 and filed representation before the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Sijua-Jharia Electrical Supply Circle, Loyabad (Dhanbad) and claimed payment of excess amount and adjustments. In this connection the Consumer filed C.W.J.C. No. 2750 of 1993 (R) in this Court. A counter affidavit on behalf of the Board was filed therein and by order dated 6.12.1993 the Writ Application was disposed of with a direction to the Consumer to deposit 50% amount of the Bills in question and to the Board not to disconnect the electric connection thereafter and to the Electrical Superintending Engineer to dispose of the aforesaid representation of the consumer by a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order. 3. The Consumer did not deposit the said 50% amount of the bills in question as ordered by this Court. However, the Electrical Superintending Engineer, Loyabad, disposed of the representation by order dated 29.10.1994. 4. The Consumer filed Title Arbitration Suit No. 52 of 1994 in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge, Bokaro at Chas purporting to be under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and prayed that let the Agreement dated 15.4.1989 and 20.4.1991 be filed in court and the dispute between the parties as stated in the plaint be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by the Court. 5. It appears that the Consumer filed another Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 68 of 1994 in the same court against the aforesaid decision of the Electrical Superintending Engineer. 6. 5. It appears that the Consumer filed another Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 68 of 1994 in the same court against the aforesaid decision of the Electrical Superintending Engineer. 6. The Board appeared in Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 52 of 1994 and filed written statement stating inter alia, that there was no arbitration clause in the Agreement for supply of electricity and a suit under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act to refer the matter to an Arbitrator appointed by the court was not maintainable. 7. By order dated 30.3.1995 the learned Subordinate Judge has been pleased to entertain the application under Secs. 20 and Injunction Petition under Sec. 46 of the Arbitration Act, and directed the Board to file the two Agreements aforesaid in court, and appointed the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer of the Board at Dhanbad as Arbitrator and referred the matter to be settled within four months as per law and till disposal the Board and its officers were restrained from disconnecting the electricity supply. It was further disconnecting the electricity supply. It was further directed that the order of restrain would cease to be effective after the expiry of fifteen days of the communication of the decision by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer and issue a fresh bill to the consumer. 8. The Board has challenged the said order in this Revision application. In the facts and circumstances of the case the question arises as to whether the present petition under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act was maintainable? 9. Clauses 13 of the Agreement reads thus: 13. If at any time the Consumer is prevented from receiving or using the electrical energy to be supplier under this agreement either to be supplied under this agreement either in whole, or in part due to strikes, riots, fire, floods, explosions, acts of God or any other case reasonably beyond control or if the Board is prevented from supplying or unable to supply such electrical energy owing to any or all of the causes mentioned above the demand charge and guaranteed energy change set out in the schedule those be reduced in proportion to the ability of the Consumer to take or the Board to supply such power and the decision of the Chief Engineer, Bihar State Electricity Board, in this respect shall be the final. Note- The term Chief Engineer includes Additional Chief Engineer for the area concerned. 10. Note- The term Chief Engineer includes Additional Chief Engineer for the area concerned. 10. After perusing the contents of the aforesaid clause and hearing learned Counsel for the parties I find that it does not contain any express arbitration agreement. Nor can such an agreement be appealed out from its terms by implication, there being no mention in it of any dispute, much less of a reference thereof. On the other hand the purpose of the clause clearly appears to be to vest the Chief Engineer to take a decision as regards the items mentioned therein. 11. It is not clear to me from the impugned order of the learned Subordinate Judge when he referred the matter to the General Manger-cum-Chief Engineer of the Board at Dhanbad, it was reference by way of arbitration or it was reference on the ground that he was having exclusive jurisdiction in the matter, as the Chief Engineer/Additional Chief Engineer was a special tribunal created by the agreement to decide the claims referred to in the said Clauses 13. The words used in the operative part of the order are "may be settled by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer". 12. We have not been able to comprehend the reasonings in the impugned order. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to be quire conscious of the fact that the claims raised with respect to the cause mentioned in Clauses 13 fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chief Engineer and that the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide such a claim was barred. The order under revision could not be justified on any other ground except that the agreement had conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Chief Engineer to decide claims, if any referred to in Clauses 13. 13. However, it appears to me that the question if Clauses 13 constituted an arbitration agreement between the parties was not raised before the court below and the observation "it was an admitted position that Clauses 13 of the agreement for supply is an arbitration agreement" appears to be an error of record. 14. In my opinion, on interpretation of the relevant clause it does not amount to an arbitration agreement and this clause vests the Chief Engineer only with the authority to decide the claims under it finally. In exercise of such powers the Chief Engineer is to adjudicate upon the claims that might be placed before him. 14. In my opinion, on interpretation of the relevant clause it does not amount to an arbitration agreement and this clause vests the Chief Engineer only with the authority to decide the claims under it finally. In exercise of such powers the Chief Engineer is to adjudicate upon the claims that might be placed before him. Reference of such a claim mentioned in Clauses 13 to the Chief Engineer at any rate does not mean a reference of any dispute to him as an Arbitrator. Clauses 13 refers to certain claims of the Consumer in the given circumstances and not the disputes between the parties and there in no occasion for any Arbitration. I have, therefore, no doubt in holding that Clauses 13 does not constitute an arbitration agreement between the parties. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff-opposite party was not entitled to refer to Clauses 13 of the agreement and seek arbitration under Sec. 76 of the Act. His prayer in the suit was, therefore, misconceived. The learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain such suit under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act to pass interim orders and to refer the claims, if any of the Consumer, wrongly treating them as disputes between the parties to the General Manger-cum-Chief Engineer for arbitration. In the facts and circumstances, the trial courts direction to the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer to proceed in the matter taking the amount as settled by Electrical Superintending Engineer as correct and decide the dispute in regard to the actual amount of remissions the plaintiff was entitled to, was not justified. Such directions are without jurisdiction. 16. In the result, this Revision application is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.3.1995 passed by the First Subordinate Judge, Dhanbad, in Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 52 of 1994 is set aside. Accordingly the said suit is dismissed and the interim orders stand vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs.