JUDGMENT : 1. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order No.DE/E10B/ARB/KRU 330474/15, dated 31.10.2003 passed by the fifth respondent/Deputy General Manager, Telecom, Telephone Exchange, Pollachi & Arbitrator under Sections 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 2. Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is extracted below:- “Arbitration of disputes:- (1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been, provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purposes of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. (2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.” 3. It has been stated in Section 2(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, that Part I of that Act except Sections 40(1), 41 and 43 shall apply to every arbitration under any other enactment for the time being in force, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other enactment were an arbitration agreement, except insofar as the provisions of that Part are inconsistent with that other enactment or with any rules made thereunder. This gives the impression that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides for recourse to a Court against an arbitral award, is applicable to the orders passed by the Arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. 4. When the availability of the aforesaid effective remedy to impeach the order of the fifth respondent was pointed out, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.L. Jaggi Vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. & Ors [ (1996) 3 SCC 119 ], Union of India and another Vs. M/s.Jagajit Industries and another [ (1999) 4 SCC 506 ], and Saji Geevarghese Vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. & Ors [ (1996) 3 SCC 119 ], Union of India and another Vs. M/s.Jagajit Industries and another [ (1999) 4 SCC 506 ], and Saji Geevarghese Vs. Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) and Others [ (2009) 1 SCC 644 ], have held that the only remedy available to an aggrieved person against the award passed by an Arbitrator under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, is judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and hence, the Petitioner has rightly preferred this Writ Petition before this Court. 5. However on a reading of the aforesaid decisions it is noticed that in none of those cases, the existence of the remedy of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by virtue of Section 2(4) of that Act, has been brought to notice. Moreover, on a perusal of the facts in M.L. Jaggi Vs. Mahanagar Telephones Nigam Ltd. & Ors [ (1996) 3 SCC 119 ] and Union of India and another Vs. M/s. Jagajit Industries and another [ (1999) 4 SCC 506 ], it is noticed that the arbitral awards in those cases had been passed before 22.08.1996 when the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, came into force. 6. At the same time, it also requires to be pointed out that the words “shall not be questioned in any Court” occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, tends to create an impression that it is “inconsistent” with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Moreover, analogous provisions were contained in Sections 30 and 46 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which is the forerunner to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further relying upon the decision of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.S. Munivenkatappa Vs. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief General Manager, Chennai [ 2007 (2) CTC 135 ] submitted that it would cause hardship to the Petitioner if he is directed at this distance of time to exhaust the alternative remedy to vindicate his grievance, as its availability is not always a bar to entertain a Writ Petition. 8. State Bank of India, rep. by its Chief General Manager, Chennai [ 2007 (2) CTC 135 ] submitted that it would cause hardship to the Petitioner if he is directed at this distance of time to exhaust the alternative remedy to vindicate his grievance, as its availability is not always a bar to entertain a Writ Petition. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the following substantial questions of law of general importance arise for consideration:- (i) Whether the remedy of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is available to set aside an arbitral award passed under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885? (ii) If the answer to the earlier question is in the affirmative, whether Petitioner who has filed Writ Petition before this Court against the arbitral award passed under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, ought to be relegated to pursue the remedy of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or the Writ Petition which has been pending for long, be proceeded to be decided on merits? 9. As it is desirable that an authoritative pronouncement is made on the aforesaid questions, the Registry is directed to place the papers in this Writ Petition before My Lord The Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider the constitution of a Larger Bench of Hon'ble Judges of this Court for the aforesaid purpose.