Exclusive statutory forum for works-contract disputes bars private arbitration; withdrawn reference cannot be refiled without liberty.

A writ petition was maintainable because the dispute raised a public law element: a State-owned entity challenged invocation of private arbitration in a matter governed by a special statute for works-contract disputes. The concession agreement was treated as a works contract, so the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction and the contractual arbitration clause could not override the statutory mandate. Withdrawal of the earlier reference without liberty barred a fresh reference on the same subject matter, though the appellant could seek recall of the withdrawal order and restoration of the earlier reference before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable on the touchstone of public law element; (ii) Whether disputes arising from the concession agreement fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal under the 1983 Act, excluding private arbitration under the 1996 Act; (iii) Whether withdrawal of the earlier reference without liberty barred the appellant from pursuing restoration and the same claims in another forum.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was maintainable on the touchstone of public law element.

Analysis: A writ under Article 226 is not confined to disputes against the State in the strict sense. Where a State-owned entity invokes writ jurisdiction against a private contractor, maintainability depends on the presence of a public law element. The dispute here was not a mere enforcement of private contractual obligations, but a challenge to the invocation of private arbitration notwithstanding an asserted statutory forum under the special enactment governing works contracts. The project concerned a State road and the relief sought related to the forum competent to adjudicate disputes affecting a public function.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether disputes arising from the concession agreement fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal under the 1983 Act, excluding private arbitration under the 1996 Act.

Analysis: The concession agreement was treated as a works contract within the statutory definition. The special statute defines disputes to include ascertained or ascertainable money claims arising out of works contracts, mandates reference to the Tribunal irrespective of any contractual arbitration clause, and bars civil court jurisdiction. The agreement could not contract around the statutory mandate. Prior binding decisions recognizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal in works contract disputes were applied, and the monetary claims were held to be covered by the statutory definition of dispute.

Conclusion: The Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction, and the private arbitration proceedings could not be sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether withdrawal of the earlier reference without liberty barred the appellant from pursuing restoration and the same claims in another forum.

Analysis: The reference before the Tribunal had been withdrawn without obtaining liberty to institute a fresh reference. The withdrawal provision imposes a substantive bar on filing a fresh reference on the same subject matter. At the same time, in the interests of justice, the appellant was permitted to seek recall of the withdrawal order and restoration of the earlier reference before the Tribunal, which would then consider the request on merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The appellant was barred from re-agitating the withdrawn claims in a fresh proceeding, but was permitted to apply for restoration of the earlier reference before the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to private arbitration failed on merits, the statutory forum was upheld, and the appellant was given a limited opportunity to seek revival of the earlier reference before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute creates an exclusive forum for works-contract disputes and mandates reference to that forum notwithstanding any arbitration clause, private arbitration is excluded by operation of law, and withdrawal of a statutory reference without liberty bars a fresh reference on the same subject matter.

---