Since parties are common and the questions that arise are also common, though falling under three different transactions, as arise under common judgment, these matters are being taken up together for disposal.

2. Heard Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Superintending Engineer of the State and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent for the Contractor-claimant.

3. All these appeals and revisions are at the instance of both the sides namely the concerned Superintending Engineer and the Contractor, aggrieved against the common o judgment in OP Nos.118, 119, 120 of 1988, If O.S. Nos.165, 167 and 169 of 1988. In the appeals in CMA Nos.479, 93, 94, 480, 481 and 95 of 1990 arise out of the applications filed in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act seeking to set-aside the awards passed in O.P. Nos.118/88, 119/88 and 120/88. Whereas the revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in CRP Nos.303, 304, 305, 1039, 1040 and 1041 of 1990 arise out of the suits filed by the Contractor seeing a decree in terms of the awards passed by the Arbitrator dated 19.8.1988 in respect of disputes arising under the three different agreements by the second respondent-Arbitrator.

4. The facts in brief are that in terms of the tender notification dated 18.9.1978 for three different works namely (1) Construction of non-over flow masonry dam from Ch.670-00 to 748-50 M. on left flank of Pennahobilam Balancing Reservoir, (2) Construction of non-over flow masonry dam , from Ch.852-04 to 950-00 M. on right flank of Pennahobilam Balancing Reservoir, (3) Construction of spillway from Ch.748-50 to 852-04 M of Pannahobilam Balancing Reservoir, the contractor submitted tenders along with others and the same were accepted and the three different agreements, namely Agreement No.10/78-79, Agreement No.11/78-79 and Agreement No.14/79-80 were entered into between the parties. The value of the work in all these three agreements is Rs.78,25,920/-, Rs.1,03,70,180/- and Rs.1,34,39,330/- respectively. As per the terms of the agreement the work has to be completed within a period of 18 months period from the date of handing over possession of the site to the Contractor. In the work under agreement No.10/78-79 the possession was handed over on 16.11.1979, for the work under 11/78-79 the site was handed over to contractor on 21.4.1979 and for the work under 14/79-89 the site was handed over on 28.6.1979. Accordingly, it is stated that the contractor commenced all the three works but could not complete the work within stipulated time of 18 months and extension of time was granted for completion of the work. However, contractor has complained to department that delay was on account of the fault of the department and since the rates have gone up therefore, he is entitled for enhanced rates. Though there has been a due recommendation for the extension as well as fixing the workable rates, Government did not agree for enhancement of rates and ultimately the contractor was asked to stop the work in September, 1993 and the contract was terminated on the request of the contractor himself on 13.8.1985. Even prior to the termination, the claims have been put forth by the contractor distinctly under various heads under the separate works. The claim No.1 related to extra lead of 4 k.m. for stone and metal for which he claimed three different amounts of Rs.7,68,825/-, Rs.12,38,250/- and Rs.9,59,325. Claim No.2 related to workable rates for the work done beyond agreement period for completion of the work for which he claimed Rs.1,23,42,010/- under agreement No.1 0/7879, Rs.1,28,56,560/- under agreement No.11/78-79, and Rs.l,21,20,453/- under agreement No.14179-80. Claim No.3 related to compensation on account of non-supply of food grains for which he claimed Rs.28,64,506/- and Rs.39,14,456/- and Rs.40,67,421/- respectively. Claim No.4 related to reimbursement of the non-supply of cement of quan