WP(C) 7110/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY A writ of mandamus and/or appropriate order is sought for in the instant proceed ing to require the respondents herein to release a further amount of Rs. 83,106/ - to the petitioners as due to them for executing the contract of construction o f 128 Nos. of Type-I (SPL) quarters (4 storied) Ph-II at the Khanapara C.R.P.F. Camp. I have heard Mr. J. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitione rs and Mr. S Baruah, learned Central Government Standing Counsel, for the respon dents. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that in course of the exe cution of the aforementioned works, the respondents had supplied steel and cemen t in connection therewith. The left over of these building materials was returne d to the department after the completion of the works. At the time of the prepar ation of the final bill on 26/3/1994, an amount of Rs. 83,106/- was, however, de ducted by the respondents from the amount payable on account of alleged excess c onsumption of materials. This constituted the value of the left over materials a s above. A dispute having arisen with regard to such deduction as well as on oth er counts, the same was referred to arbitration as envisaged under the contract agreement. The Arbitrator on 30/6/1994 awarded in all an amount of Rs. 7,09,102/ - with simple interest thereon in favour of the petitioners. Being aggrieved, th e respondents made an application under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award on that the award in respect of claim Nos. 1, 2 and 3 allowed by the arbitrator was in contravention of the related clauses of the A greement and that in passing the impugned award the Arbitrator had mis-conducted himself by not taking into consideration all the matters brought to his notice. The fact that the contractor had not issued a notice to the Department as per c lause 16 of the agreement was also emphasised. The learned Court below by the ju dgment and order dated 1/2/1997 sustained the award in full. It also granted int erest @ 10% per annum on the principal sum adjudged by the award and confirmed b y the decree from the date thereof (decree) till payment. Incidentally the Arbit rator had in all awarded an amount of Rs. 7,09,102/- as referred to hereinabove. Admittedly the respondents have not challenged this decree in higher forum and, therefore, the same has become final. The petitioners have complained before this Court that though an additional amou nt of Rs. 83,106/- was payable to them in terms of the award, the respondents ha ve arbitrarily refused to disburse the same. According to them, together with in terest, they are entitled to a further sum of Rs. 1,82,833/-. The respondents in their affidavit have in substance contended t hat in terms of the award, an amount of Rs. 14,41,604/- comprising of a sum of R s. 7,09,102 as principal amount together with interest thereon has since been co mputed and released in favour of the petitioners and that therefore, no further remittance is called for. According to them, the petitioners’ claim of an additi onal sum of Rs. 83,106/- is misconceived. Mr. Singh has urged with reference to the arbitral award that th e following observation made by the Arbitrator while adjudicating the claim No. 1 entitles the petitioners to the aforesaid amount of Rs. 83,106/- in addition t o the sum of Rs. 7,09,102/-. The respondent already recovered the cost of steel at single rate as per issue and not double recovery in terrorem is justified on examination of the final bil l . Mr. Baruah on the other hand has urged that a plain reading of the reasonings pr eceding the above observation would demonstrate without any speck of doubt that the petitioners’ claim is misconceived. Mr. Singh on instructions has admitted that the amount of Rs. 14,40,600/- had al ready been received by the petitioners. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced have been duly considere d. Claim No. 1 adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator is captioned as herein below:- Claim No. 1: The claimant claims balance amount due for work done but not pai d- Rs. 1,00,000/-. The adjudication relatable to the said claim reveals the claiman ts’ (petitioners’) grievance of absence of joint measurement resulting in a diff erence of 12.63 M.T. of Mild Steel and 19.112 M.T. of Tor Steel in actual utilis ation thereof in the works. According to the claimants/petitioners, 12.335 MT of Mild Steel and 18.989 MT of Tor Steel had in fact been applied for the works. T he learned Arbitrator having observed the absence of any misuse, pilferage etc o f the steel consumed in the works and the adjustment of the balance steel by the return indent came to the conclusion following a verification books/statements filed by the claimants and also taking note of the total quantity of steel issue d vis-à-vis the theoretical consumption of steel as per respondents, returned a finding that the claimants’/petitioners’ were entitled for payment for the use o f 12.335 M.T. of Mild Steel and 18.99 M.T. of Tor Steel. The figure was worked o ut at Rs. 98,102/-. The observation under quote followed the same. In the comprehension of this Court, the Arbitrator did not inten d to hold by the observation extracted hereinabove that the claimants/petitioner s were entitled to a further amount of Rs. 83,106/-. Such a conclusion, in the o pinion of this Court, does not follow in the teeth of the reasonings recorded by the learned Arbitrator before arriving at a figure of Rs. 98,102/- to be the am ount due to the claimants/petitioners under Claim No. 1. Admittedly the disputes and differences referred to arbitration included the petitioners’ claim of Rs. 83,106/-, which according to them had been recovered in excess from their bills. On a totality of the considerations as hereinabove, this Court i s of the unhesitant opinion that the petitioners’ claim in the facts and circums tances of the case for a further amount of Rs. 83,106/- when judged on the touch stone of the findings and conclusions of the learned Arbitrator cannot be sustai ned in law and on facts. The petition, therefore, lacks in merit and is dismissed. No cos ts.