Administrative appointment power under arbitration law is limited to constituting the tribunal; refusal may be challenged by mandamus.

Under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Chief Justice or nominee performs an administrative function limited to removing obstacles to constitution of the arbitral tribunal; it does not involve adjudication of disputes on the merits. The Court linked this limited role to the Act's scheme of minimal court intervention, with issues such as arbitrator independence, qualifications, validity of the arbitration agreement, and jurisdiction remaining open for the arbitral process under sections 13 and 16. An order appointing an arbitrator is therefore not amenable to Article 136, and if appointment is refused, the appropriate remedy is a writ of mandamus to compel appointment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Chief Justice or his nominee, while acting under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, performs an administrative function or a judicial or quasi-judicial function; (ii) whether an order appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator under section 11(6) is amenable to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and what remedy is available if appointment is refused.

Issue (i): Whether the Chief Justice or his nominee, while acting under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, performs an administrative function or a judicial or quasi-judicial function.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the 1996 Act is to secure speedy constitution of the arbitral tribunal with minimum court intervention. Sections 13 and 16 show that contentious matters relating to the arbitrator's independence, qualifications, impartiality, and the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement are to be decided within the arbitral process. In that setting, the function under section 11(6) is confined to removing impediments and facilitating appointment so that arbitration may commence without delay. The authority acting under that provision is therefore not deciding disputes on merits but is only aiding constitution of the tribunal.

Conclusion: The function under section 11(6) is administrative in nature, not judicial or quasi-judicial.

Issue (ii): Whether an order appointing or refusing to appoint an arbitrator under section 11(6) is amenable to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, and what remedy is available if appointment is refused.

Analysis: Because the order under section 11(6) is administrative, an order appointing an arbitrator does not attract Article 136. Where appointment is refused, the refusal does not become an adjudication binding the arbitral tribunal, and the aggrieved party is not left without remedy. In an appropriate case, the proper course is to seek a writ of mandamus to compel performance of the duty to appoint, while issues concerning the arbitration agreement or jurisdiction remain open before the arbitral tribunal on their own merits.

Conclusion: An order under section 11(6) is not amenable to Article 136, and refusal to appoint may be corrected by mandamus.

Final Conclusion: The connected challenges to appointment and refusal to appoint arbitrators failed, and the court reaffirmed that the section 11(6) power exists to facilitate arbitration swiftly with limited court interference.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to appoint an arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an administrative function aimed at constituting the arbitral tribunal, and orders made in that exercise are not subject to appeal under Article 136, though a refusal may be addressed by mandamus.

---