Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. Harji Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., the objector, was awarded contract for erection, testing and commissioning of eltrostatic precipitators at Ampara "B" Thermal Power Project vide LOI dated 28.8.91 issued by Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd., the respondent.

2. Disputes arose between the parties and in terms of the arbitration clause, one Mr. U.C. Gupta, Senior DGM of the respondent was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator. However, on his retirement, Mr. S.K. Sawhney, the then AGM of the respondent was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator in 1997.

3. Mr. S.K. Sawhney has made and published, the award dated 21.2.2006, partly allowing claims of both parties. The objector has challenged the said award in the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act", for short).

.4. Paragraph 3 of the award reveals that the learned Sole Arbitrator had entered reference on 01.10.1997 and had 27 effective hearings before him. The last effective hearing was held on 14.11.2002. This is apparent from the reading of paragraph 3 of the award dated 21.2.2006, which is as under:

.In due compliance of my assignment as the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, the undersigned called for the ninth arbitration proceedings on 01.10.1997 and since then, 27 proceedings were conducted by the undersigned up to 14.11.2002 viz. on 01.10.1997, 15.10.1997, 29.11.1997, 8.12.19997, 22.12.1997, 07.02.1998, 23.04.1998, 08.05.1998, 20.5.1998, 26.5.1998, 20.11.1998, 30.12.1999, 05.04.2000, 02.12.2000, 19.12.2000, 04.01.2001, 13.2.2001, 23.02.2001, 14.03.2001, 13.09.2001, 12.10.2001,18.10.2001, 24.10.2001, 15.1.2002, 08.04.2002, 10.10.2002 & 14.11.2002.

.5. The award in question was made on 21.2.2006, 3 years after the last effective hearing was held. Thus, there is substantial delay between the last effective hearing and date on which the learned Arbitrator had made and published this award. The delay was not explained or justified in the impugned award. It was also submitted that even hearings had not concluded. The objector urged that the award was contrary to public policy. It was contented by the respondent that the delay was occasioned by talks of compromise and hearing was also held on 2.12.2003. It was also submitted that hearing had concluded and even written arguments had been filed by the parties. Challenge to the award should be examined on merits alone.

.6. Order sheet of the learned Arbitrator dated 14.11.2002, reads as under:

1. Representatives of both the claimants as well as Respondents participated in the hearing as per the enclosed attendance sheet.

2. At the outset, Claimants requested that action taken by the Respondents on the set of papers handed over by them prior to the previous hearing and under study by the Respondents as conveyed in the last hearing be indicated. On this, the Respondents representative submitted that the same is under scrutiny and can be discussed in the next hearing. However, he discussed various other issues with the Claimants in detail. The Claimants again requested the Respondents for early action in view of the considerable time already elapsed on the matter.

3. Both the parties were directed to come prepared in the next hearing with their claims and counter claims properly recorded with relevant evidence so that the matter can be pursued further.

4. The next date of hearing shall be intimated shortly.

7. Order sheet dated 14.11.2002 reveals that hearing in the arbitration proceedings had not concluded and were still pending consideration before the learned Arbitrator. Time had been taken by the respondent for scrutiny of papers and submitting their reply. Paragraph 3 of the order dated 14.11.2002 is a clear pointer that the learned Arbitrator wanted to have further hearings in the matter. Order dated 14.11.2002 is an answer to the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the parties had filed their written submissions and nothing remained to be ur