( 1 ) THE respondent-objector has challenged the award mainly on the premise that Arbitrator has traversed beyond the terms of the agreement between the parties and has also not dealt with the contentions and objections raised by the respondent during the proceedings.

( 2 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that any award which is beyond the terms of the agreement is a nullity. The award is liable to be set aside if it suffers from perversity if it is writ large over it. At the same time reappraisal or re-appreciation of the material and evidence produced before the Arbitrator is not permissible as no award is a subject matter of appeal.

( 3 ) CLAIM no. 1 has been assailed on the ground that the Arbitrator has straightaway resorted to sub-clause (iv) of clause 12 of the contract without discussing as to how none of sub-clauses from (i) to (iii) is not applicable. Clause 12 (iv) reads as under:-

"if the rates for the altered, additional or substituted work cannot be determined in the manner specified in Clause (i) and (ii) above, then the rates for such work shall be worked out on the basis of the Schedule of rates of the District specified above minus/plus the percentage which the total tendered amount bears to the estimated cost of the entire work put to tender. Provided always that if the rate for a particular part or parts of the item is not in the schedule of rates, for such part or parts will be determined by the engineer-in-Charge on the basis of the prevailing market rates when the work was done. "

( 4 ) THE main grouse is that the Arbitrator has proceeded on the presumption that Engineer-in-Incharge has to fix rate of extra item. The question before the arbitrator was as to which was the authority competent to fix rates of extra item in the contract. According to the learned counsel for the respondent it is the superintending Engineer to whom the powers for fixing rates for extra work has been conferred and therefore rates have to be fixed by Superintending Engineer. I am afraid the interpretation of sub-clause (iv) of Clause 12 is wholly incorrect as put up by the learned counsel for the respondent.

( 5 ) ANY authority either specified by name or designation in any clause or terms of the agreement for doing any particular act is the only authority to whom the power vests. The official procedure or process adopted by a particular department is of no relevance. It is the named authority with whom ultimate decision lies. In the instant case it was Engineer-in-Incharge who was empowered to fix rate of such items. No doubt the engineer-in-Charge is allowed to fix rates after obtaining views of Superintending Engineer or any other authority or official but it does not mean the ultimate authority is superintending Engineer. The Arbitrator has rightly held that it was Engineer-in-Charge alone who was empowered to fix rates for extra items and none else. I do not find any error in this finding of the Arbitrator. The objection is wholly groundless and unacceptable.

( 6 ) THE award with regard to claim no. 1 is being challenged on the ground that without obtaining instructions in writing to provide 12 mm thickness of top layer instead of 6 mm top layer due to increase in size/gauge of marble chips for work item 7. 3 in the contract, the contractor could not have undertaken the said work merely on the verbal instructions of the respondent. There is no doubt that the terms of the contract executed between the parties in writing are to be observed in letter and spirit. However, if some verbal instructions are given by a party for providing some extra work or item and the said party takes the benefit of extra work, it cannot be allowed to put the other party to loss by taking the objection that the executing party did not obtain instructions in writing before carrying out the said extra work and as such is not entitled for compensation.

( 7 ) IN the instant case, learned counsel for the respondent mainly relied upon the letters C-13 a