A binding bid clause directing disputes to a statutory tribunal bars writ-court appointment of an arbitrator.

The respondent had obtained a sand-ghat settlement through a public auction/tender.

It later sought adjustment or refund of a proportionate settlement amount for a period when mining activities were suspended following an order of the National Green Tribunal.

The Single Judge appointed a sole arbitrator under Sections 11(8) and 12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and held that limitation would not arise in view of the Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal No. 12036 of 2016.

The State appealed, contending that Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document required disputes to be resolved under the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008.

1. Whether the Single Judge could appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, where Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document provided for dispute resolution under the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008.

2. Whether the respondent’s dispute was required to be pursued under the procedure prescribed by Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document.

Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document provided that disputes between the Department and the successful bidder/settlement-holder would be resolved under the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008.

The court relied on Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority v. Rama Kant Singh, (2022) 4 SCC 489, concerning the statutory dispute-resolution regime under the 2008 Act and its relationship with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

It held that Clause 9 governed the parties’ dispute and that the Single Judge could not appoint an arbitrator under the 1996 Act in disregard of that clause.

The court found that Clause 9 expressly prescribed the 2008 Act as the forum for resolving disputes between the Department and the settlement-holder.

It concluded that the Single Judge had erred by appointing a sole arbitrator under the 1996 Act without considering the binding dispute-resolution term or the cited precedent.

The appeal was resolved on that basis; the court did not adjudicate the underlying claim for refund or adjustment.

It directed the respondent to apply to the competent authority under Clause 9 and expected that authority to decide the application within six months of its filing, after hearing the stakeholders and in accordance with law.

Pending applications were also disposed of.