( 1 ) SHRI Mahesh Bansal entered into an agreement with the Executive Engineer (FCD. 1) regarding the work of "construction of pucca drain in between R. D. 1200 to R. M. 18 (X) of Nasirpur Link Drain", An agreement was entered into between the parlies. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause No. 25. Dispules arose between the partics. The petitioner asked for the appointment of an Arbitrator pursuance to Clause 25 of the agreement. When the respondent failed to do so, he moved a petition in this Court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. This Court vide order dated 20th Septcmber,1990 directed the respondent to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arisen between the parlies. Pursuance to the said order, Chief Engineer (I and P), Delhi Administration appointed Shri S. S. K. Bhagat, Chief Engineer (Civil), N. D. M C. as the- sole arbitrator.

( 2 ) THE said arbitrator has made and published his award dated 12th March,1991. The said award was Filed in the Court by the arbitrator on 17th May,1991. Notice of the Filing of the award was issued. Mr. S. K. Mittal, Advocate appearing for the petitioner accepted the notice on 17th May,1991 whereas the respondent was served with the notice of the Filing of the award. After the service of the notice, the respondent Filed the present objections to the award vide IA. No. 9796/91.

( 3 ) THE award has been challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that the arbitrator misconducted the proceedings by collecting the information and had the site inspection done behind the back of the respondent. He collected the data without the knowledge and notice to respondents. In the body of the award the arbitrator himself has admitted this when he observed that he relied on the "detailed site inspection of the work". According to the respondent, no site inspection of the work ever look place in the presence of the respondent, and therefore, the reliance by the arbitrator on site inspection which was conducted by him without notice to respondent amounts to misconduct. Moreover, the arbitrator being a public servant could not accept money from the petitoner by way of fees. He was not entitled to charge any cost. . He also exceeded his authority by awarding interest. Against claim No. 6 the arbitrator has awarded damages for idle establishment and for rise in costs due to delay in work. For the claim of idle establishment, the petitioner failed to produce actual record like acquittance roll. This fact is admitted by the arbitrator himself in his proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, the award of damages on account of idle establishment is based on surmises and conjectures. In the absence of any proof the awarding of damages to the tune of Rs. 30,000. 00 amounts to misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. No delay could be attributed to the respondent and, therefore, damages could not be awarded. The claim No. 3 based on Clause 10 (c) was also against the facts on record. Under Clause 10 (c) of the agreement, the petitioner was required to give notice before prefering a claim. Having not complied with the provisions of Clause 10 (c), the arbitrator ought not to have awarded the amount against this claim. The arbitrator had no authority to set aside the levy of compensation imposed by the Superintending Engineer under Clause 2 of the Agreement. Therefore, the award of Rs. 432. 00 against Claim No. 4 was beyond his purview. The award of Rs. 11,228. 00 against Claim No. I is also based on no evidence. No payment could be made for executing the work in walls as the payment could only be made for the work done under the foundation. As per Clause 12 of the contract for storm water drains all items of work related to foundation except lining of drain. Therefore, R. C. C. work which was executed for construction of toe wall in a lined storm water drain, the respondent was justified to pay it under foundation rather than in walls. Therefore, the award suffers from thi