1 2026:CGHC:16341-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2050 of 2025 Shree Ganpati Infratech FF-4, Maruti Business Park G.E. Road, Post And District- Raipur Through Its Partner Manoj Kumar Aggarwal S/o Late Motiram Aggarwal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o House No. 48, Near Agrasen Chowk, Nagar Nigam Colony, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Department of Railways, 256- A Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat New Delhi 110001 2 - South East Central Railway (Secr) Through The Divisional Railway Manager Titli Chowk, Rail Parisar, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sr. Divisional Engineer (East) South East Central Railway O/o Sr. Divisional Engineer (Co-Ordination), Titli Chowk, Railway Settlement, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Varun Sharma and Krishna Tandon, Advocates For Respondents/Railways : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General along with Mr. Rishab Dev Singh and Mr. Niraj Baghel, CGCs ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 09.04.2026 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 1 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):- “i. To kindly set aside the impugned order dated 28/03/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1) issued by the Respondent No.3. ii. To kindly direct the respondent No.2 to take action and complete the conciliation proceedings as per the Notice of Dispute dated 27/02/2025 within a time limit of 15 days fixed by this Hon’ble Court. iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner from the respondent no.2.” 2 At the outset, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent/Railways submitted that the present petition is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court in view of the existence of a valid and binding arbitration clause between the parties. 3 Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that though there is Arbitration clause, but in view of judgment passed the Apex Court in Central Organization for Railway Electrification Vs. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Company, reported in (2025) 4 SCC 641, wherein the same Arbitration clause of the respondent/ Railways has been struck down, hence, the petition be heard by this Court on its merit. 3 4 Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Organization for Railway Electrification (supra) is misconceived and not applicable to the facts of the present case. It was contended that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts and does not ipso facto render the arbitration clause in the present agreement invalid or unenforceable. It was further submitted that in view of the statutory scheme, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner, if aggrieved, is to invoke the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner cannot bypass the statutory mechanism and directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. 5 Thus, at this stage, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6 Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra