JUDGMENT M. M. DAS, J. : This writ petition has been filed by the State of Orissa in its Irrigation and Power Department along with other officials of the State as petitioners, calling in question the legality of the order dated 28.12.2002 passed by the learned Arbitrator, Justice Shri P.C. Mishra, former Judge of this Court, in the Arbitration Proceeding which was referred to him pursuant to the orders passed in Civil Revision No.341 of 2000 by this Court. 2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the respective parties, it is apt to state the facts of the case in brief. A dispute between the opp.party and the State Government in its Irrigation and Power Department was initially referred to the Special Arbitration Tribunal comprising of Justice Shri B. K. Behera, former Judge of this Court. Later on, the said dispute was transferred to the Arbitration Tribunal and the said Tribunal passed an ex parte award under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (herei¬nafter referred to as the ‘Old Act’). In Misc. Case No.429 of 1992 arising out of O.S. No.144 of 1992, the opp.party prayed for setting aside the ex parte award. The said suit was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. By order dated 4.9.2000, the ex parte award passed by the Arbitration Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the said Tribunal for passing the award afresh after giving reasona¬ble opportunity of hearing to the parties. During pendency of the arbitration proceeding before the said Arbitration Tribunal, the opp.party also filed O.S. No.52 of 1988 in which Misc. Case No.154 of 1990 was filed by him under Section 5 of the Old Act for appointment of a Special Arbitration Tribunal instead of referring the matter to the Orissa Arbitration Tribunal. This prayer of the opp.party was rejected by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in the self-same order by which the dis¬pute was remitted back to the Arbitration Tribunal for fresh disposal. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the prayer of the opp.party for referring the matter to a Special Arbitration Tribunal, the opp.party preferred Civil Revision No.341 of 2000 before this Court. Being aggrieved by the refusal of the prayer of the opp.party for referring the matter to a Special Arbitration Tribunal, the opp.party preferred Civil Revision No.341 of 2000 before this Court. In the meanwhile, the Arbitration and Concili¬ation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘New Act’) having come into force when the above Civil Revision was being heard by this Court, a prayer was made by the opp.party who was the peti¬tioner in the said Civil Revision to refer the matter to an named arbitrator with consent of the State. Accordingly by order dated 16.11.2001, this Court while disposing of the Civil Revision, passed the following order :- “Heard. As agreed to by the parties, Justice P.C. Mishra, a retired Judge of this Court is appointed as an Arbitrator in this case. He is requested to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. The Civil Revision is disposed of. Office to communicate this order to the Arbitrator imme¬diately. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Addl.Stand¬ing Counsel.” Subsequent thereto, Misc. Case No.441 of 2002 was filed by the State for recalling the above quoted order on the ground that the dispute having already been decided by the Arbitration Trib¬unal, appointment of another Arbitrator is not necessary. The said application was disposed of by order dated 25.7.2002 refus¬ing to recall the previous order by which the learned arbitrator was appointed. However, it was observed by this Court that it is open to the State to take such an objection before the arbitrator indicating, inter alia, that the dispute has already been decided by the Arbitration Tribunal, and, in the event, such objection was raised, it was expressed by this Court, that the learned Arbitrator will consider the same and pass appropriate orders. 3. Consequent to the above order passed by this Court, the State filed a preliminary counter statement before the learned Arbitrator raising the question of maintainability of the pro¬ceeding. The question of maintainability after being heard at length, the learned Arbitrator passed the order which is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. 3. Consequent to the above order passed by this Court, the State filed a preliminary counter statement before the learned Arbitrator raising the question of maintainability of the pro¬ceeding. The question of maintainability after being heard at length, the learned Arbitrator passed the order which is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. Learned Government Advocate basically contended that since the State did not give its consent for appointment of Jus¬tice Shri P. C. Mishra, a former Judge of this Court, as Arbitra¬tor, during course of hearing of the Civil Revision on 16.1.2006, by this Court, this Court could not have appointed him as the Arbitrator by order dated 16.1.2001 by which the Civil Revision No.341 of 2000 was disposed of. He further contended that the learned Arbitrator by the impugned order has committed an ille¬gality by not accepting the contention of the State that it did not give consent for his appointment as Arbitrator. 5. Mr. Kanungo, on the contrary, appearing on behalf of the opp.party, vehemently argued that it is not open for the State to raise the question of legality of the finding arrived at by the Arbitrator with regard to his jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute between the parties after the prayer of the State was rejected by this Court by order dated 25.7.2002 passed in Misc. Case No.441 of 2002 arising out of the said Civil Revision No.341 of 2000. Mr. Kanungo further contended that the State has never raised the question before this Court in its application which was registered as Misc.Case No. 441 of 2002 that the State never gave its consent for appointment of the Arbitrator on 16.11.2001 when the order was passed, appointing the learned Arbitrator. 6. As provided under Sections 85 of the New Act, Sub-section (2) (a) thereof specifies that notwithstanding the repeal of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, the provisions of the said enactments would be applicable to the arbitral proceedings which commenced before the New Act came into force, unless otherwise, agreed by the parties. Order dated 16.11.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.341 of 2000, which has been quoted herein above, clearly sows that Justice Sri P.C. Mishra (retired) was appointed as an Arbitrator, on agreement of the parties. Order dated 16.11.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.341 of 2000, which has been quoted herein above, clearly sows that Justice Sri P.C. Mishra (retired) was appointed as an Arbitrator, on agreement of the parties. Thus, it is clear from the record that notwithstanding repeal of the Old Act by Section 85 of the New Act, the parties having agreed for appointment of the learned Arbitrator, the arbitration proceeding was to be continued under the New Act. As a matter of fact, from the order dated 25.7.2002 passed in Misc. Case No.441 of 2002 filed by the writ petitioners in the said Civil Revision, it is revealed that the contention raised now by the learned Government Advocate before us that the State had not agreed for appointment of the learned Arbitrator, was never raised in the said Misc. Case No.441 of 2002. The only question which was raised in the said Misc. Case was that the dispute having already been decided by the Arbitration Tribunal, appointment of another Arbitrator was unnecessary. (Emphasis supplied). 7. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Arbitra¬tor, which is impugned in the present writ petition, clearly shows that the questions raised before us have been elaborately dealt with by the learned Arbitrator in the said order inasmuch as Section 16 of the New Act clearly provides that the Arbitra¬tion Tribunal is competent to decide its own jurisdiction. Sec¬tion 16 (6) of the New Act further provides as follows :- “16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its juris¬diction-(1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) A party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accor¬dance with Section 34". 8. Mr. Sec¬tion 16 (6) of the New Act further provides as follows :- “16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its juris¬diction-(1) to (5) xxx xxx xxx (6) A party aggrieved by such an arbitral award may make an application for setting aside such an arbitral award in accor¬dance with Section 34". 8. Mr. Kanungo, learned counsel for the opp.party relying upon a decision in the Case of B.S.N.L. & others v. M/s. Subash Chandra Kanchan and another, JT 2006 (12) SC 25 vehemently argued that the Supreme Court in the said case while dealing with a similar question, has categorically held that though in the facts of the said case a clause in the agreement provided that ordinar¬ily the Arbitrator appointed by the Managing Director should act as Arbitral Tribunal in respect of disputes and differences between the parties, the appellants before the Supreme Court must be held to have waived their rights as they consented to the appointment of one Shri Bhattacharya as an Arbitral Tribunal and the High Court having appointed the Arbitral Tribunal on consent, it is not open to the appellants to contend that no such concession was made. Mr. Kanungo, learned counsel further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 16 (6) of the New Act. 9. On considering the facts leading to the present case and various orders passed by this Court, we find that it is not open for the writ petitioners to contend that the State has not given its consent for appointment of Justice Shri P.C. Mishra (retired) as Arbitrator. On the face of the order of this Court passed on 16.11.2001 recording the agreement of the parties to appoint him as the Arbitrator, we find no illegality in the impugned order. 10. In view of our above conclusion, we are not dealing with the questions regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 34 of the New Act as per provisions of Section 16 (6) of the said Act. 11. In the result, we find not merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 11. In the result, we find not merit in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, while dismissing the writ petition, as we find that reference was made to the Arbitra¬tor by an order passed by this Court on 16.11.2001 and the matter is lingering till date, we feel it appropriate to observe that the learned Arbitrator shall make an endeavour to conclude the arbitration proceeding within a period of six months from today and the parties are directed to cooperate in the matter. There shall be no order as to the costs. S. B. ROY, C.J. I agree. Petition dismissed.