ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant challenges the order passed by the High Court rejecting the claim of the petitioner to stay the proceedings before the Arbitrator as the Arbitrator is biased. By means of an interlocutory order passed earlier by the High Court the Arbitrator was directed to proceed with the same but not to pass a final Award. 3. The main grievance of the appellant, as submitted by learned senior counsel Mr. P.P. Rao is, no appeal lies as against allegation that the Arbitrator is biased hence he filed a writ petition, since after the adjudication by the Arbitrator appellant would be barred to file appeal on this ground. On the other hand, submission by learned senior counsel Mr. R.K. Jain is, Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 covers such situation hence appeal lies, which could be legitimately raised, not at this stage but after the Award is made. Further submission for the appellant is, no appeal in any case is provided, at the initial stage, i.e. before Arbitration proceeds and an objection is raised i.e. during interregnum between the period when such an allegation is raised till matter is finally decided by the Arbitrator by making an Award. The submission is, one has to wait for a long period and has to pass through arduous journey of proceedings with the pleadings, evidence led by the parties, submission made etc. and Award passed before such challenge of bias is made. However, we are not deciding this issue in the present case, as all this arduous journey in this case is over and the matter is only waiting for giving an Award by the Arbitrator. We are informed the Arbitrator has only to declare the Award. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents further relies on the decision of this Court in Babar Ali v. Union of India & Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 178 , which upheld the validity of the aforesid Act. Learned counsel, on the other hand attempt to distinguish it as the question of bias was not gone into in the way placed in this case. 5. 2000 (2) SCC 178 , which upheld the validity of the aforesid Act. Learned counsel, on the other hand attempt to distinguish it as the question of bias was not gone into in the way placed in this case. 5. In the impugned order, High Court records the following findings : "Having upheld the constitutional validity of the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and having upheld the right of the petitioner to challenge the award of the arbitral tribunal on grounds of bias and prejudice on the part of the arbitrator under section 34 of the Act, we are of the view that we need not go into the second question raised in this petition about the alleged bias and prejudice on the part of the arbitrator as a matter of fact." 6. In view of the fact the aforesaid findings of the High Court wherein the petitioner has been given a right to appeal under Section 34 of the Act, the prejudice, if any, or limitation if any of the petitioner dissolves. Once that right is declared at least petitioner cannot raise such objection that there is no right of appeal, when the right is declared by the High Court. The other question, that the appellant has to wait for a long period, namely, till decision by the Arbitrator, it is not necessary to go into as that period is over, as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, states that his client is not going to raise any objection in appeal that bias is not covered under Section 34 of the Act hence no appeal lies. Learned counsel for the respondent states it was stated so in the High Court and he is reiterating before us again. 7. Hence, on the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not entering into the question of law raised, which is left open. In view of the aforesaid statement by the learned counsel, appellant grievance does not subsist. Any observation made by us is without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Even the decision of the High Court to this extent whether question of bias is not covered under Section 34 is kept open in view of the said statement. With the said observations, this appeal is finally disposed of.