ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. By the order sought to be reviewed, issued on 28th June, 2006, it was noticed that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and there are disputes to be resolved. The named arbitrator had not entered on reference. Accordingly, following the decisions of the Apex Court in Datar Switchgears v. Tata Finance Ltd. ( (2000) 8 SCC 151 ) and Punj Lloyd v. Petronet M.H.B. Ltd. ( (2006) 2 SCC 638 ), an arbitrator was appointed allowing the arbitration request. 3. This application for review is filed contending that the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties has no bearing because, it is part of local competitive bidding specifications and that the arbitration clause in such an agreement no more survives in view of the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and Reopening of Awards Act, 1998, for short, the “Act”, which has come into force on 14th November, 1997, by virtue of S.1(3) of that Act .The learned counsel for the respondent in the review petition states that the operation of the Act has been stayed by this Court in a bunch of Writ Petitions challenging that enactment. 4. To decide the issue in hand, the interpretation of the Act would suffice. By virtue of S.3(1)(i), the arbitration clauses in every agreement shall stand cancelled. The term 'agreement' for the purpose of the Act, going by S.2(1)(a), means an agreement executed in terms of the local competitive bidding specifications for various works of the Government of Kerala. Therefore, the provisions of the Act apply only to agreements for various works of the Government of Kerala and only when it is in relation to the various works of the Government of Kerala, would the question arise as to whether that agreement is one in terms of local competitive bidding specifications. Such an issue does not arise in this case for the simple reason that the review petitioner, Kerala Water Authority, is an authority constituted under the Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 (Kerala) and is not part of the Government of Kerala. It is an independent statutory body of an autonomous nature. If any reference to its pedigree and history is required, immediate reference can be made to para. 2 of the often quoted decision of the Apex Court in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority ( 1990 (2) KLT 673 (SC)). It is an independent statutory body of an autonomous nature. If any reference to its pedigree and history is required, immediate reference can be made to para. 2 of the often quoted decision of the Apex Court in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority ( 1990 (2) KLT 673 (SC)). Hence, the review petitioner, Kerala Water Authority, is not entitled to contend that the arbitration agreement between the parties to this case has been nullified by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. In the result, the review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.