PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) NPCC's objections to the award dated 23. 3. 2002 (corrected on 19. 4. 2002) published by Sh. M. M. Kapoor, sole arbitrator are being decided by and under the present order.

( 2 ) BEFORE dealing with the objections, a few relevant facts pertaining to the contract, nature of the dispute and finding returned by the learned arbitrator may be noted. This would help in appreciating the objections raised by the petitioner.

( 3 ) CONSTRUCTION work whereunder 37 dwelling units in different categories and a trainee hostel having 120 rooms was awarded by NPCC to jyoti Swaroop Mittal, the contractor.

( 4 ) AS per the contract, date of commencement of work was 22. 5. 1990. Completion period was 18 months. Thus, stipulated date of completion was 21. 11. 1991. The project was actually completed on 31. 12. 92 i. e. with a delay of approximately 13 months.

( 5 ) THE works were awarded at a total cost of Rs. 1,96,82,410. 92/-, though the estimated costs notified in the tender were Rs. 123. 7 lacs was for civil works and Rs. 11. 3 lacs for electrical works.

( 6 ) AS usual, the first and foremost thing which had to be decided by the learned arbitrator was, who was responsible for delay in execution of the works.

( 7 ) LEARNED arbitrator has dealt with the issue of delay under the caption "time Extension" commencing from Page 11 and running up to Page 15 of the award.

( 8 ) LEARNED arbitrator has noted the correspondence exchanged between the parties during the relevant period and has noted 5 principle reasons which delayed the due completion of the works.

( 9 ) THE first reason noted by the learned arbitrator is late receipt of drawings as also amendments to the drawings. Learned arbitrator has noted that within time, foundation drawings were made available for only 3 categories of quarters and for the remaining 3, the same were supplied belatedly. Pertaining to the hostel building, learned arbitrator has noted that the foundation details were furnished in the first week of August 1990. Noting that amendments to the foundation drawings were made when works were under progress, learned arbitrator has opined that 6 months delay would be attributable to the petitioner on said account.

( 10 ) SECOND reason for delay noted by the arbitrator is a decision taken to change the specifications of the bricks. However, on facts, learned arbitrator has Held that due to overlapping of the said period with delay occasioned due to late supply of drawings, it had no effect.

( 11 ) THE third reason for delay noted by the learned arbitrator and for which benefit of 71/2 months has been granted to the contractor is hindrance at the site where hostel block had to be constructed inasmuch as a HT line was passing through the site and due to the provisions of the Electricity rules, work could not proceed beyond ground level till HT lines were shifted.

( 12 ) THE 4th reason for delay noted by the learned arbitrator is the increase in scope of work. Noting the proportionate increase in work, learned arbitrator has opined that contractor ought to have been granted extension of time on said account by 2 months and 18 days.

( 13 ) THE 5th reason for delay is non-release of payment within time. However, learned arbitrator has held that no effect on the progress of work was resulting due to delay in payment.

( 14 ) THUS, the benefit of delay worked out by the learned arbitrator was 6 months + 71/2 months + 2 months and 18 days equal to 16 months and 3 days.

( 15 ) BUT noting that the actual delay was 13 months and 10 days, learned arbitrator held that the entire delay would be attributable to the petitioner.

( 16 ) WITH the aforesaid back drop of the facts, it would not be adventurous on my part to venture upon the inquiry which I am supposed to conduct i. e. discuss the objections to the award.

( 17 ) THE first and foremost objection urged is that no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and petitioner was d