IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb.Case Nos.27 and 33 of 2008. Date of decision: 15.09.2009. 1. Arb.Case No.27 of 2008. Shri Satish Kumar Vij. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents. 2. Arb.Case No.33 of 2008. State of H.P. …Petitioner. Versus Shri Satish Kumar Vij. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. Arb.Case No.27 of 2008. For the Petitioner: Mr.S.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Arb.Case No.33 of 2008. For the Petitioner: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr.S.R. Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. Both these petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) have been preferred against 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 the award made by the Arbitrator in claim petition preferred by the petitioner Satish Kumar Vij. The Arbitrator, while adjudicating on the claims put forth by the petitioner in Arbitration Case No.27 of 2008, holds that the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the State is void. He, however, proceeds to award certain sums of money under various heads as claimed by the petitioner. In this Objection Petition the ground for challenge is that the Arbitrator was wrong in holding that the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent-State was void. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. A.L. Rallia Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1685 to contend that once an award letter had been issued by the competent Authority, there was a valid and existing contract between the parties as contemplated by Article 299 of the Constitution of India. He submits that this finding of the Arbitrator is against law and requires to be set aside and the case be remanded for decision afresh to the Arbitrator to determine the losses as claimed by the petitioner. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State in Arbitration Case No.27 of 2008 and for the petitioner in Arbitration Case No.33 of 2008, submits that the award requires to be set aside on the ground that it is in violation of 3 the mandate of Section 31(7), sic 31(3), of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inasmuch as the award does not give reasons for allowing or disallowing a particular claim. She submits that the Arbitrator has not given any reasons for allowing the claims of the petitioner. The petitioners in both the cases are aggrieved by the award and want re-determination of the controversy. There is substance in the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General that the Arbitrator should have supplied reasons for awarding damages under various heads. This aspect of the matter is now concluded by judgment of this Court in Janki Ram vs. State of H.P. & Others, 2008 Shim.L.C. 195. It has been repeatedly reiterated that it is the quality of reasons which sustains the award and not the volume of writing. It is also well settled that there has to be a nexus between the reasons and the conclusion arrived at by the Arbitrator. On the aspect urged by Shri S.R. Sharma, leaned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Arbitration Case No.27 of 2008, that the Arbitrator was wrong in holding that the contract was void, I am not expressing any opinion since the case is being remanded to the Arbitrator for decision afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that the law cited has to be considered and applied by him to the facts of the case. The decision of the Supreme Court 4 of India is binding on all. The Arbitrator is directed to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity to both the parties to make submissions on the respective merits of their case and to determine as to whether the contract was void or not, more especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rallia Ram’s case supra as followed by this Court. Needless to say that he shall give reasons for his award. Parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 9th October, 2009. The records be sent back to the Arbitrator forthwith. Both these petitions are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Since the dispute pertaining to the year 2002, a direction is issued to the Arbitrator that he shall make the award not later than 31st December, 2009. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to the parties. The material and pleading on record shall constitute the pleadings and evidence of the parties. September 15, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.