Arbitrator appointment under the Arbitration Act remains open to limited writ review, but objections should usually be raised before the arbitrator.

An order appointing an arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as administrative and therefore amenable to review under Article 226, but writ interference was ordinarily limited because the Act provides objections before the arbitral forum under sections 12, 13 and 16. On the facts, challenges to the arbitration agreement, the age of the dispute, and the applicability of the Act could be raised before the Arbitrator, so the writ court should not have entertained the petition. The appeals failed and the parties were left to pursue their contentions before the appointed Arbitrator.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order made by the Designated Judge under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether, on the facts of the case, the writ petition challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator was liable to be dismissed because the objections could be raised before the Arbitrator.

Issue (i): Whether an order made by the Designated Judge under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The order under section 11(6) was treated as administrative in nature. An administrative order is generally amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the Court distinguished the original writ jurisdiction of the High Court from the appellate jurisdiction under Article 136. The earlier Constitution Bench ruling was understood to bar an appeal under Article 136 against such an administrative order, but not to exclude writ review under Article 226. At the same time, the availability of objections before the Arbitrator under sections 12, 13, and 16 meant that writ interference would ordinarily be limited.

Conclusion: Yes. A writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable, though only on limited grounds in view of the alternative remedy under the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts of the case, the writ petition challenging the appointment of the Arbitrator was liable to be dismissed because the objections could be raised before the Arbitrator.

Analysis: The grounds urged against the appointment, including the alleged inapplicability of the Act, the age of the dispute, and objections based on the arbitration clause, were all matters that could be canvassed before the Arbitrator. Since the statutory scheme permitted those objections to be agitated before the arbitral forum, the writ court ought not to have entertained the challenge on the facts presented.

Conclusion: Yes. The writ petition was liable to be dismissed, and no remand was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed and were dismissed, leaving the parties to raise their contentions before the Arbitrator appointed under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: An order appointing an arbitrator under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is an administrative order amenable to Article 226 review, but writ interference is ordinarily limited where the statute provides an efficacious remedy before the arbitrator on the issues raised.

---