An award which does not contain reasons is not invalid and cannot be set aside on that ground alone.

( 1 ) THE proceedings arise under the Arbitration Act.

( 2 ) THE Arbitrators passed the award on 4-2-1983 upholding the claims of the Contractor. The award was filed into Court of the Vth Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. O. S. No. 232 of 1983 was filed under section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act to pass a judgment and decree. The department filed O. P. No. 65 of 1983 for setting aside the award. Both were clubbed and disposed of by a common judgment. The v Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad decreed the suit and made the award a rule of the Court after dismissing the O. P. filed by the department to set aside the award.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED thereby the department, the Super in tending Engineer, nagarjuna Sagar Left Canals Circle, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District had filed C. M. A. No. 417 of 1984 against the judgment in O. P. No. 65 of 1983 and C. R. P. No. 1152 of 1984 against the decree in O. S. No. 232 of 1983.

( 4 ) THE only submission made by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the appellant is that the award does not contain any reasons. As it is a non-speaking award, it may be remitted to the Arbitrators after setting aside the decree for passing a fresh award giving reasons.

( 5 ) WHETHER an award which does not contain reasons is invalid and is liable to be set aside or remitted was considered by the Supreme Court in a number of cases. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. We shall make a reference to the latest on this point.

( 6 ) IN Raipur Development Authority vs. Chokhamal Contractors a Five judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that an Award which does not contain reasons is not invalid and the same cannot be remitted or set aside by the Court on the sole ground of the award being unreasoned in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary in the arbitration agreement and rules of natural justice cannot be invoked to compel arbitrator to give reasons. However, the Court held where parties stipulate requiring the arbitrator to furnish reasons, arbitrator would be bound to give the reasons. Reliance was placed on the earlier decisions in Firm Madanlal Roshanlal mahajan vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd. and Rohtas Industries Ltd. vs. Rohtas industries Staff Union. The submission that giving reasons in the award is in consonance with the Rules of natural justice was rejected saying that there are only two principles of natural justice (1) that a Judge or an Arbitrator, who is entrusted with the duty to decide a dispute should be disinterested and unbiased and (2) that the parties to the dispute should be given a notice and opportunity to be heard by the authority. Giving reasons in support of a decision was not considered to be a rule of natural justice either under the law of arbitration or under administrative law. Although in decisions pertaining to Administrative Law, Supreme Court in some cases has observed that the giving of reasons in an administrative decision is a rule of natural justice by an extension of the prevailing rule, it would be in the interest of the world of commerce that the said rule is confined to the area of Administrative Law. What applies generally to settlement of disputes by authorities governed by public law need not be extended to, all cases arising under private law such as those arising under the law of arbitration which is intended for settlement of private disputes.

( 7 ) IN a later case reported in State of A. P. vs. R. V. Rayanim the supreme Court held that in the case of non-speaking awards, the Court cannot speculate in respect of mental process of the Arbitrator. The contention that the award was bad in law us it does not contain reasons was rejected following the earlier decision in Raipur Development Authority vs. Chokhamal Contractors (1 supra ).

( 8 ) IN the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the agreement does not provide for giving reasons. In fact, no such submission was made, following the above rulings of t