JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 24.02.2000 passed in Request Case No. 39 of 1998(R). The writ petition is filed pursuant to the observations made in L.P.A. No. 408 of 2001, dated 13.12.2002 (Annexure-5). 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent No.1, the petitioner-BCCL, has floated tender vide tender dated 30.07.90 for tree plantation work at Patherdih Coal Washery. The respondent No. 1 submitted the tender and the work order dated 23.8.90 was issued for Rs. 5,51,112.60. As per the terms of the agreement, the contract was to be completed within three years. According to the respondent No.1, he executed an agreement for value of Rs.5.51 lacs and after completion of the work, the work site was damaged owing to fire. The further case of the respondent No.1 is that he had executed the work of tree plantation again but no further payment has been released by the petitioner. The respondent No.1 raised a dispute with regard to payment of Rs.15,57,252/-. The respondent No.1 through his lawyer issued an arbitration notice demanding a sum of Rs. 15,57,252/-. Since the differences between the parties could not be settled, the respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 11(6) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was contested by the petitioner contending that Clause-9 of the Agreement, which contends Arbitration Clause, has been specifically deleted and, therefore, there is no question of adjudication of the dispute by the Arbitrator. Upon hearing the arguments of both the parties vide order dated 24.2.2000 in Request Case No. 39 of 1998(R), the learned Single Judge has allowed the application filed under Section 11(6) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Mr. S.K. Choudhary, retried Judge, Patna High Court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and for passing the award in accordance with law. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Request Case No. 39 of 1998(R), dated 24.2.2000, the appellant filed Civil Review No. 20 of 2000(R) to review the said order and the said review application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed L.P.A. No. 408 of 2001 which was also dismissed on 13.12. 2002 by the following orders: “4. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Request Case No. 39 of 1998(R), dated 24.2.2000, the appellant filed Civil Review No. 20 of 2000(R) to review the said order and the said review application was also dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant filed L.P.A. No. 408 of 2001 which was also dismissed on 13.12. 2002 by the following orders: “4. 13.12.02 Heard the parties.Respondentno.1 filed Request Case No. 39 of 1998 (R) under section 11 (6) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was disposed of on 24.02.2000, appointing Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and for giving award in accordance with law. Appellants filed Civil Review No.20 of 2002 (R) to review the said order which was dismissed on 08.06.2001. Thereafter they have filed the present appeal against the order refusing to review the said order, which in our opinion, is not maintainable. In view of decision of the apex Court in Konkan Railway Corporation and another versus Rani Construction Private Limited {(2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 388}, petitioners' remedy against order dated 24.02.2000 was to file writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This appeal is dismissed accordingly.” 4. Based on the observations made in L.P.A. No. 408 of 2001, the petitioner filed this writ petition to set aside the order dated 24.2.2000 passed in Request Case No. 39 of 1998(R). 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Mahesh Tewari submitted that since the arbitrator has already been appointed and he passed the award and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. In response to this, Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though learned arbitrator has passed the award but his appointment was under challenge in the writ petition and the same cannot be attained finality. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the award passed is concerned, it was of different agreement and has got no relevance. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the award passed is concerned, it was of different agreement and has got no relevance. 6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 7. This writ petition filed is mainly based on the observations made in the L.P.A. No. 408 of 2001 that the petitioner to seek remedy in view of the decision of the apex Court in Konkan Railway Corporation and another versus Rani Construction Private Limited, (2002) 2 SCC 388 and to file writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the case of SBP & CO. Vrs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and another reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of the power of the Chief Justice under Section 11(6) of the Act by holding that the order passed under Section 11(6) of the Act is not merely an administrative order but a judicial order and specifically over ruled the decision rendered in Konkan Railway Corporation and another versus Rani Construction Private Limited. Para 47 of the judgment reads as under: “47. We, therefore, sum up our conclusions as follows: (i) The power exercised by the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Chief Justice of India under Section 11(6) of the Act is not an administrative power. It is a judicial power. (ii) The power under Section 11(6) of the Act, in its entirety, could be delegated, by the Chief Justice of the High Court only to another Judge of that Court and by the Chief Justice of India to another Judge of the Supreme Court. (iii) In case of designation of a Judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, the power that is exercised by the designated Judge would be that of the Chief Justice as conferred by the statue. (iv) The Chief Justice or the designated Judge will have the right to decide the preliminary aspects as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. These will be his own jurisdiction to entertain the request, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the existence or otherwise of a live claim, the existence of the condition for the exercise of his power and on the qualifications of the arbitrator or arbitrators. These will be his own jurisdiction to entertain the request, the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, the existence or otherwise of a live claim, the existence of the condition for the exercise of his power and on the qualifications of the arbitrator or arbitrators. The Chief Justice or the designated Judge would be entitled to seek the opinion of an institution in the matter of nominating an arbitrator qualified in terms of Section 11(8) of the Act if the need arises but the order appointing the arbitrator could only be that of the Chief Justice or the designated Judge. (v) Designation of a District Judge as the authority under Section 11(6) of the Act by the Chief Justice of the High Court is not warranted on the scheme of the Act. (vi) Once the matter reaches the Arbitral Tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with the orders passed by the arbitrator or the Arbitral Tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the Court only in terms of Section 37 of the Act or in terms of Section 34 of the Act. (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 that 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 others under section 11(6) of the Act have been made based on 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. Corpn. Ltd. V. Rani Construction (P) Ltd. And others under section 11(6) of the Act have been made based on 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. (xi) Where District Judges had been designated by the Chief Justice of the High under Section 11(6) of the Act, the appointment orders thus far made by them will be treated as valid; but applications if any pending before them as on this date will stand transferred, to be dealt with by the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned or a judge of that Court designated by the Chief Justice. (xii) The decision in Konkan Rly. Corpn. Ltd. v. Rani Construction (P) Ltd. is overruled. 9. It was held in para-47 (vii) that since the order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by the designated Judge of that Court is a judicial order and appeal will lie against that order only under Article 136 of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. Since the decision in Konkan Railway Corporation and another versus Rani Construction Private Limited has been specifically overruled, this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.