JUDGMENT :

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The petitioner in the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is challenging the Arbitral Award dated 13.06.2016 passed by the Sole Arbitrator Sri. Arunava Ghosh in the Arbitration Agreement arising out of the agreement No. 4/T/II/03-04 dated 23.04.2003.

2. The facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

3. The respondent, i.e., the Divisional Manager-III, Eastern Railway, Sealdah,by Memo No. 222-S/1/164/WII dated 03.02.2003, awarded to the petitioner the work of T.S.R. (P) from Km 168.002 to Km 177.00 (9.00 km) with PSC sleepers, including ancillary works, under SE/P-Way, Bhagwangola, within the jurisdiction of AEN, Ranaghat. The stipulatedperiod for completion of the work was nine months.

4. During the execution of the work, extensions of time were granted to the petitioner on six occasions under Clause 17 of the General Conditions of Contract. The final extensions were granted with imposition of liquidated damages.

5. At the commencement of the work, a joint inspection was conducted at the site. During such inspection, it was observed that owing to heavy rainfall and flooding, the railway track along with sleepers had become submerged below the earth surface. The Railway authorities initially undertook lifting of the track marginally above the earth surface using their own manpower and machinery to facilitate movement of traffic at a reduced speed.

6. For execution of the awarded work, lifting of the submerged track by approximately 12 inches along the site, in phases, followed by packing and earthwork at each stage, became necessary. The work of lifting was carried out in three phases of 4 inches each, with packing undertaken after each phase. In addition, renewal of sleepers by replacement with PSC sleepers and cess repair work along the stretch were also executed.

7. The additional works executed at site were recorded in the Extra Work Register maintained by the Railway authorities and were authenticated by the concerned Railway Engineers.

8. During the course of execution, the respondent released six on account bills towards the contractual items. By letter dated 01.11.2006, the petitioner sought approval of the additional works executed at site.

9. By letter dated 26.10.2007, the Assistant Engineer informed the petitioner that the final bill along with the variation statement, measurement book, and material statements had been received and requested the petitioner to sign the final variation certificate in the measurement book and variation statement. The petitioner thereafter signed the said documents. Subsequently, by letter dated 16.01.2008, the petitioner communicated that the final bill and variation statement had been signed under protest and sought release of the outstanding dues.

10. The respondent released payment in terms of the final bill, after deducting a sum of Rs.85,285/- towards liquidated damages.

11. Disputes having arisen between the parties, arbitration was invoked. By order dated 11.01.2013, this Court appointed Sri Arunava Ghosh as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes. The Sole Arbitrator passed the final award, whereby the claims raised by the petitioner were rejected.

12. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

13. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned award was passed without adequate consideration of the pleadings, documents, and material on record. It is submitted that after completion of pleadings, the arbitral proceedings comprised only two sittings, held on 14.01.2016 and 13.06.2016. According to learned Counsel, during the second sitting, the Sole Arbitrator dictated the award in the presence of the parties, without granting the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing or permitting examination of the concerned Railway Engineers under whose instructions the additional works were stated to have bee