A writ court cannot appoint an arbitrator when the bid mandates statutory tribunal arbitration.

The respondent was granted settlement of sand ghats in Nalanda for 2015–2019 through a public auction/tender process.

A dispute arose concerning the settlement amount and the respondent’s claim for adjustment or refund for a period when mining activities were suspended.

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 a Supreme Court order dated 13 November 2025.

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 writ court could appoint a sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, despite Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document providing a different dispute-resolution mechanism

2. Whether the dispute was required to be referred for resolution under the Bihar Public Works Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008, pursuant to Clause 9

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 & Ors. v. Rama Kant Singh, (2022) 4 SCC 489, which addressed the statutory operation of the 2008 Act and its relationship with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The Court held that Clause 9 governed the parties’ dispute and that the writ court had no power to appoint an arbitrator contrary to that clause.

The Standard Bid Document formed the basis of the settlement, and its Clause 9 expressly prescribed the statutory forum for resolving disputes.

The Single Judge’s appointment of an arbitrator under the 1996 Act did not account for that binding provision.

Applying Clause 9 and the cited decision in Rama Kant Singh, the Division Bench concluded that the dispute had to proceed through the mechanism specified in the bid document, rather than through the arbitrator appointed by the writ court.

The respondent was directed to apply to the competent authority under Clause 9 of the Standard Bid Document.

The Court expected the competent authority to decide the application within six months of its filing, after hearing the stakeholders and in accordance with law.