IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arbitration Case No.: 20 of 2007. Date of decision : 12.03.2008 M/s.Khoob Chand Tyagi ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This petition has been filed by the claimant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) challenging the award made by the Arbitrator (Superintending Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Circle, Hamirpur). A number of grounds have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to submit that the award cannot be sustained in law. The primary objection taken by the claimant is that an application under Section 33 of the Act had been 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 sent to the Arbitrator and the Executive Engineer by registered post on 1.11.2004 in which prayer has been made for making an additional award with respect to claim No.1 and claim No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 33 of the Act as aforesaid, the application was made within 30 days of the receipt of the arbitral award which was received on 12.10.2004. Annexure C-2 is a copy of the application and two receipts showing that the application was sent by Registered AD post to “Shri R.N. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, I & PH Circle, Hamirpur” and “Executive Engineer, I & PH Division, Kullu”. The application was posted by Registered AD post from the Ashok Vihar office in Delhi. This was followed by reminders sent by UPC (Annexures C-3, C-4 and C-5). Learned counsel submits that under Section 33 of the Act as aforesaid, it was the duty of the Arbitrator to have either accepted or rejected his application by a speaking order. The petition was admitted and that respective affidavits of the parties in support of their contentions have also been filed. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the objection is not maintainable as it is beyond limitation and that no application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed by the 3 petitioner as alleged. It is urged that the petition requires to be dismissed on the preliminary point of limitation alone. Without going into the rival contentions on the merits of the claim advanced by the parties to this petition, it is prima facie established on the record that an application under Section 33 of the Act had been sent to the Arbitrator. A copy of this application has also been sent to the Arbitrator and a copy thereof to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation and Public Health Division, Kullu (Annexure C-2). There is nothing on the record to show that this application was in-fact not sent to the Arbitrator or the respondents or that the receipts evidencing posting of this application by Registered AD post are not genuine. The submissions to the contrary by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State cannot be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the Arbitrator shall take up the matter afresh from the point where the application was sent by the claimant to the Arbitrator. He shall decide the application in accordance with law and then make the award. Nothing has been said by this Court regarding the merits of the application or its maintainability. The Arbitrator shall decide the 4 matter himself. This petition is accepted. The award made by the Arbitrator is quashed and set aside who shall decide the matter in accordance with law. The parties shall be sent notices for appearance and the case disposed of expeditiously. March 12, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.