ORDER : S.B. Sinha, J. - 1.Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.6.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in writ petition No. 2446/2004 opining that the writ petition filed by the petitioner questioning the order passed by the Chief Justice of the same High Court in terms of Section 11(6)of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not maintain able in view of as even-Judge Constitution Bench decision of this Court in SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd. And Anr. [ 2005 (8) SCC 618 ]. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. An application was filed by the appellant herein in the High Court on 19.9.1997, for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The said application was dismissed inter alia on the ground that the application was filed after the expiry of period of limitation by order dated 17.4.1997. Are view petition filed there against also came to be dismissed. 4. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied there with the appellant filed a special leave petition before this Court wherein leave was granted and was registered as Civil Appeal No. 5044/1999. The said appeal, in view of the law laid down by this Court as was then prevailing, namely, Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd. [ 2002 (2) SCC 388 ], was held to be not maintainable. 5. The appellant there fore availed the remedy, which was Available in terms of the decision in Rani Construction (supra),by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The said writ petition was filed on 14.5.2004. Indisputably, the correctness or otherwise of Rani Constructions (supra)was doubted and the matter ultimately was referred to a seven-Judge Bench. The majority of the Bench overruled Rani Construction (supra) stating that the power exercised by the Chief Justice or his designate is not an administrative power but a judicial power. While laying down the said law, however, it was held: "47(vii)Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated Judge of that Court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against the order only under Article 136 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. While laying down the said law, however, it was held: "47(vii)Since an order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated Judge of that Court is a judicial order, an appeal will lie against the order only under Article 136 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. (viii)There can be no appeal against an order of the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court designated by him while entertaining an application under Section 11(6) of the Act. (ix)In a case where an Arbitral Tribunal has been constituted by the parties without having recourse to Section 11(6)of the Act, the Arbitral Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to decide all matters as contemplated by Section 16 of the Act. (x) Since all were guided by the decision of this Court in Konkan Rly. Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd. And order sunder Section 11(6) of the Act have been made based o the position adopted in that decision, we clarify that appointments of arbitrators or Arbitral Tribunals thus far made, are to be treated as valid, all objections being left to be decided under Section 16 of the Act. As and from this date, the position as adopted in this judgment will govern even pending applications under Section 11(6) of the Act." 6. In view of the aforementioned direction by this Court, there cannot be any doubt that the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was maintainable having regard to the fact the application under Sub-section(6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act had already been decided and a writ petition was filed. 7. We, there fore, set aside the impugned order and direct the High Court to consider the matter a fresh on merits. The appeal is allowed. No costs.