( 1 ) OBJECTIONS by Delhi Development Authority are against the award made and published on 13th November, 1992 by Shri Shyam Narayan, the Sole Arbitrator on the disputes pertaining to the execution of the work of redevelopment scheme of Kingsway Camp (SH;construction of SW drains at Outran Lines) awarded vide agreement No. 3/ee/cd. VLL/85-86.

( 2 ) THE objections are against the rejection of D. D. A s counter claim and against the award made in claimants favour for claim Nos. 1 to 4 and 6. Against its counter claim the objector laid a claim for Rs. 79,408. 00 towards compensation levied under clause 2 of the agreement on account of delay in the completion of the work.

( 3 ) THE arbitrator placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vishwa Nath Sood v. Union of India, A. I. R. 1989 S. C. 962, held the quantum of levy to be non-arbitrable. The arbitrator held that the power of Superintending Engineer had been kept outside the scope of arbitration but its justification is covered by Arbitration Clausehich had been REFERRED TO for adjudication. Going into the merits of the counter claim the arbitrator held that the Executive Engineer/superintending Engineer took an unbalanced view in a hurry and levied 5 % compensation although delayed performance was accepted without making clear the intention to levy damages. D. D. A. was held to have waived its right to claim compensation. Thus the counter claim was rejected.

( 4 ) THOUGH the arbitrator was right in holding that quantum of levy of compensation, in view of the decision in Vishwanath s case (supra)was non-arbitrable but went wrong in making further observations that justification thereof is covered by arbitration clause. The arbitrator further went wrong in observing that the counter claim of the respondent is not justified and was thus wrong in rejecting the same. In view of the ratio of the decision in Vishwa Nath s case (supra), the arbitrator could not have gone into the merits of the levy of compensation. In terms of clause 2 of the agreement, in case the Delhi Development Authority considered that it was entitled to the amount towards compensation, since it was a matter outside arbitration, it could recover the said amount in accordance with law from the claimant instead of asking the arbitrator to include the said amount in his award. The findings of the arbitrator are not in consonance with the decision in Vishwa Nath s case (supra ). It will be for the Delhi Development Authority to take appropriate steps for enforcing its claim, as it may be deemed fit and proper in accordance with law. The matter regarding levy of compensation or its justifiability could not have been REFERRED TO for adjudication by the arbitrator and arbitrator also would not get any jurisdiction to enter into the merits or demerits of the compensation. In Delhi Development Authority v. Sudhir Bros, 1995 (32) DRJ 366, a Division Bench of this Court considered such an objection and held that arbitrator in such like situation has no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the levy of compensation by the Superintending Engineer. The award to this extent of the arbitrator, wherein he has gone into decisionof the Engineer was set aside. In the instant case also the award of the arbitrator to the extent to which the arbitrator held the counter claim as not justified is liable to be set aside with liberty reserved to the Delhi Development Authority to recover the said amount of compensation from the claimant by taking recourse to such other proceedings as may be permissible in law.

( 5 ) AS regards claims No. 1, 2, 4 and 6, the objections of the respondent are that the arbitrator was required to give reasons for the award. While rejecting the recovery of Rs. 9,177. 00 on account of extra item, the arbitrator failed to assign any reason, therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record in so far as claim No. 1 is concerned. Claim No. 2 was for Rs. 2,47,611. 00