S. J. VAZIFDAR, J.

( 1 ) THESE Appeals are filed against the orders and judgments of a learned single Judge dismissing the appellants" Petition under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the said Act") for setting aside the award of the learned sole Arbitrator. The learned counsel stated that the decision in Appeal (Lodging) No. 993 of 2003 will govern the decision in Appeal (Lodging) No/994 of 2003. We shall for convenience refer to the fact's in the former Appeal.

( 2 ) THE Appellants invited tenders for certain construction work. The Respondent was the successful tenderer. The Appellants therefore, accepted the respondent's tender by a letter dated 29th November, 1997. The agreement was governed by the terms and conditions contained in the said letter and other documents such as the General Conditions of Contract for Lump Sum Contracts, Special Conditions of contract, Particular Specifications,. Drawing and MES standard Schedule Of Rates. The contract was signed between the parties on 4th February, 1999. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties the respondent invoked the arbitration clause. The respondent claimed an amount of Rs. 1,88, 14, 887/ -. The learned Arbitrator oh 30th December, 2002 made the award and on 9th January, 2003 amended the same.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge by the impugned order dated 21st July, 2003, dismissed both the petitions holding that all the contentions raised before the learned Arbitrator had been taken into consideration; that the findings are within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and that the same could not be challenged in a Petition under Section 34 of the said Act.

( 4 ) MR. SURESH Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant confined the challenge to the award in respect of four claims. We will deal with each of them separately.

( 5 ) THE learned Arbitrator awarded an amount of rs. 1,99,548/- in favour of the Respondent on account of wrong price adjustment in respect of Deviation order (D. 0.) No. 27. The claim and the award in respect of this deviation order pertained to price adjustment for the provision of certain sanitary fittings such as wash basins and W. Cs. of one make in lieu of the makes specified in the contract. The challenge was based on Condition 62 (G) of the General conditions of Contracts For Lump Sum Contracts (I. A. F. W-2159 ). It is an admitted position that these conditions were part of the terms and conditions between the parties. Condition 62 reads as under :-

62. Valuation of Deviation.- the value of items of work covered by deviation orders shall be ascertained by measurements or lump sum assessment in the following order of precedence : (G ). For all Contracts If any Work, the rate for which cannot be obtained by any of the methods referred to in paras (A) to (E) above, has been ordered on the Contractor, the rate shall be decided by the G. E. on the basis of the cost to the Contractor at Site of Works plus 10% to cover all overheads and profit. Provided that if the Contractor is not satisfied with the decision of the G. E. , he shall be entitled to represent the matter to the C. W. E. within seven days of receipt of the G. E. decision and the decision of the c. W. E. thereon shall be final and binding. "

( 6 ) IT is admitted that the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the claim based on the deviation orders including this deviation order was never questioned in the arbitration proceedings itself. This point was raised only after the award was passed. Even assuming that not having challenged the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator, it is open to the Appellant to challenge the award on this ground in a Petition under Section 34 of the said Act there is no merit in the contention. In fact this contention is unfair to the learned Arbitrator.

( 7 ) AS rightly pointed out by Mr. Rajadeksha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, the deviation orders were su