JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the judgment dated 30-5-1998 passed by the Additional District judge, Kaithal, who affirmed the judgment and order dated 10-10-1997 passed by the trial Court which dismissed the objection under Sections 30 of 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, filed by the petitioner.
2. The solitary contention of the counsel for the petitioner is the award which has been given by the Arbitrator is a non-speaking award and, in this manner, the Arbitrator has misconducted himself by passing a non-speaking award as there was an agreement to the effect that the Arbitrator shall pass a speaking order. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon AIR 1990 SC 1426 and AIR 1992 SC 732. 3. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner in view of the established facts of this case. During the course of submissions, the parties have placed before me the award dated 4-9-1995 given by the Arbitrator. A reading of the same would show, primafacie, that the Contractor made a claim of Rs. 5,46,113.00 against different items. Against this claim of the contractor, the Board also lodged a claim of Rs. 1,57,179.63. The claims of both the parties were taken note of and thereafter the Arbitrator field as follows :
“Both the parties were afforded full opportunity of placing their evidence before the Arbitrator in writing and verbally. Both the parties submitted their evidence to their satisfaction to the Arbitrator.”
3. There is sufficient evidence on record which proves that the work was delayed due to the faults of the Marketing Board such as the complete site was not handed over to the agency after allotment on 16-10-1989 till 15-12-1989, then again the full payments of the agency were not released for the earth work, stone metal, stone soling, bajri etc. as such the reasons of delay were not attributable to the agency. The department had allowed time extensions and deferment of action taken against it under Clauses II and III upto July, 1992. There is sufficient evidence on record that the cement and bitumen was not supplied to the agency, which were essential for completion of the job as such the action taken by the department under Clause II is not at all justified.
4. While taking action under Clause III the justice has not been granted to the agency as D.N.I.T. of the balance work to be executed at risk and cost of the agency was based on rough cost estimate and was tentative cost of balance work and was not based on actual measurement or actual work done by the first agency on site, as such action under Clause III by the Marketing Board is not also not correct. As such the counter claims of the department are not justified.
5. Aggrieved with the unjust actions of department such as delay in handing over complete site, delay in releasing full payments, delay for supply of cement and bitumen etc. the agency had a right approach for appointment of Arbitrator by the competent authority. The claims of the agency for items executed by him at site and not measured by the department seems to be genuine as part of the same has been covered by the department in the final bill at a belated stage. During the period of lapse pilferage and misappropriation of his materials as alleged by the agency cannot be ruled out.
6. Both the parties have been provided full opportunity of placing the entire matter verbally and in writing before the Arbitrator. Both the Parties have argued the case to their entire satisfaction and they had nothing to submit further in writing or verbally when the proceedings were closed.
7. Now I Anand Parkash, Superintending Engineer have gone through the proceedings of the case thoroughly on merits and I award in favour of Sh. Ram Niwas Bansal as follows :
Claim No. 1, I award Rs. 93,600.00
Claim No. 2, I award Rs. 23,350.00
Claim No. 3, I award Rs. 16,060.00
Claim No. 4, I award Rs. 2,800.00
Claim No. 5, I award Rs. 128.00
Claim No. 6, I award Rs. 58,500.00
Claim No. 7, I award Rs. 11,500.00
Claim No. 8, I award Rs. 600.00
Claim No. 9, I award Rs. 700.00
Claim No. 10, I award Rs. 27,000.00
Claim No. 11, I award Rs. Nil
Claim No. 12, I award Rs. Nil
Claim No. 13, I award Rs. 26,100.00
Claim No. 14, I award Rs. 4,000.00
Interest @ 12% shall be payable to the agency on security of Rs. 26,100/- from 27-4-1992 and on the balance amount from 1-10-1992.”
A reading of the above would show that the Arbitrator applied his mind to the rival claims of the parties and afforded opportunity to both the parties. Thereafter, he came to the conclusion as to what extent the claim of the contractor is correct and whether any amount should be awarded to the Board or not. The purpose of passing a speaking order is application of mind on the part of an Arbitrator. When such a clause is introduced by the parties in the agreement, its purpose is that the Arbitrator should not act in a whimsical or arbitrary manner and he must apply his quasi judicial mind before adjudicating the controversy referred to him. The above quoted portion of the award would suggest that the Arbitrator had applied his mind and it cannot be said that he had passed a non-speaking award. Accordingly, there is no contention in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner.
8. No other point was urged before me.
9. No merit. Dismissed.
10. Revision dismissed.