ORDER : 1. Leave is granted in both the special leave petitions. These appeals arise against the interlocutory orders passed in Writ Petition No.3177 of 1999 by learned Single Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. 2. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6/2000 is from the interim order of the High Court dated August 27, 1999 fixing the amount to be recovered by the appellant from the respondents pending disposal of the writ petition. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10342/2000 is against the order of the High Court dated May 12, 2000 passed in MCC 98/2000 under Section 11(6) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) praying the High Court to refer the dispute to the arbitrator. 3. We would refer to the following facts to appreciate the controversy. 4. The respondents entered into agreements with the appellants for supply of Sal seeds. Under the relevant agreement the appellants are entitled to receive “actual handling and supervision charges for lifting supply of Sal seeds from the collection centres” for the year 1997-98. 5. The appellants raised a demand on May 21, 1997 which was assailed by the respondent in Writ Petition No. 2949/97 before the High Court. The appellant contested the writ petition, inter-alia, on the ground that there was an arbitration clause in the agreement, and therefore, the writ was not maintainable. 6. However, the High Court held the writ petition maintainable and decided the case on merits. By order dated November 17, 1998, the High Court allowed the writ petition directing the appellants to re-determine the charges in accordance with the observations made therein. It appears in compliance with the said order of the High Court the appellants determined the recoverable price by order dated July 11, 1999. 7. The correctness of that order was challenged by the respondents in writ petition no.3177/99 before the same High Court. During the pendency of that writ petition the respondents sought interim relief with regard to the quantum of the handling charges. By the interim order dated 27.8.1999 the Court fixed the amount which could be recovered pending disposal of the writ petition. That is the order which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6/2000. 8. By the interim order dated 27.8.1999 the Court fixed the amount which could be recovered pending disposal of the writ petition. That is the order which is the subject matter of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6/2000. 8. While so, the respondents filed MCC 98/2000 under Section 11(6) of the Act seeking appointment of an arbitrator to decide all the claims between the parties in terms of the said agreement. 9. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the respondent in this appeal, challenged the maintainability of the appeal itself, but in the view we have taken, we do not think it appropriate to go into that question. Inasmuch as the State has agreed for the appointment of Justice K.M. Agarwal, former judge of the same High Court, former Chief Justice of Sikkim High Court and former Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, and there have been certain sittings before the learned Arbitrator, we do not think that the appellants are justified in challenging the impugned order. Against the order passed with the consent of the parties no appeal ought to have been filed in this Court. 10. In so far as the interim order is concerned which is the subject matter of the other appeal, we do not propose to consider its validity as now the whole matter stands referred to the learned arbitrator who will determine all aspects of the claim. 11. It is needless to mention that all pleas available to the parties are left open to be urged before the learned Arbitrator. 12. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.