In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.726 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:28.2.2008 Executive Engineer, HUDA, Hisar .....Appellant v. M/s Shiv Shakti Construction and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the appellant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the order dated 17.10.2007 passed by the learned District Judge, Hisar on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the appellant-Executive Engineer, HUDA, Electrical Division, Hisar. The work of shifting of 11 KV line MI Feeder-I and 100 KVA Transformer PMSS and 11 KV City HT Line passing over residential plots in Sectors 9 and 9A, Bahadurgarh was allotted to M/s Shiv Shakti Construction (respondent No.1) for an amount of Rs.8.10 Lacs. The allotment was @ 2% below current rate. The work was to be carried out within a time limit of four months. The appellant alleged that no concrete steps were taken regarding execution of the work by M/s Shiv Shakti Construction (respondent No.1) till imposition of Clause II of the contract- agreement. Besides, in terms of letter dated 23.8.2002, 61 PCC poles of 11 meters long were inspected by the RITES Limited through its Inspecting Engineer Shri Ravinder Singh on 5.7.2002 but the same were not lifted by F.A.O. No.726 of 2008 [2] respondent No.1 due to non-depositing of the value of the inspected poles. These and other glaring illegalities were pointed out. It may be noticed that the Arbitrator (respondent No.2) in terms of his award dated 23.11.2004 has, for the various items claimed, ordered refund of earnest money of Rs.16,200/- only which had already been submitted by the Contractor to the HUDA. All other claims have been declined. The payment was ordered to be released to the Contractor within one month without interest from the date of award and after that 8% simple interest was to be paid by HUDA to the Contractor. The cost of stamp paper for writing the award was also to be borne by M/s Shiv Shakti Construction (respondent No.1). Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award of the Arbitrator is a non-speaking award. This aspect has been considered by the learned District Judge, Hisar. However, nothing has been proved to show that there has been any misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. Moreover, in Raipur Development Authority etc. v. M/s Chokhamal Contractors etc., AIR 1990 SC 1426, a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held as under:- “It is now well-settled that an award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decisions reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires him to give reasons. The arbitrator or umpire is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him unless under the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission he is required to give such reasons and if the F.A.O. No.726 of 2008 [3] arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in support of his decision it is open to the Court to set aside the award if it finds that an error of law has been committed by the arbitrator or umpire on the face of the record on going through such reasons. The arbitrator or umpire shall have to give reasons also where the court has directed in any order such as the one made under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act that reasons should be given or where the statute which governs as arbitration requires him to do so.” In the present case, as has already been noticed, that the amount of earnest money that was claimed has been ordered to be refunded and all other claims that were raised by respondent No.1 M/s Shiv Shakti Construction have been declined. There is nothing unreasonable in the order that has been passed which would warrant interference of this Court. Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. February 28, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No