MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this judgment, I propose to decide the abovementioned two petitions filed by the Delhi Jal Board, the petitioner, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the “Act”) challenging the arbitral awards dated 7th April, 2007 passed by the sole Arbitrator, Sh.Mitter Singh. Legal points and most of the facts are common in both the matters and hence are decided together. Parties are the same so as issues involved in the matters.

2. Both awards are made and published on 7th April, 2007 by the respondent No.2 i.e. Mitter Singh on references made.

3. Under the work of rehabilitation/renovation of 1600-1900mm dia brick barrel trunk sewer from Delhi Gate to College Lane (MCD) limit & 950X1425mm egg shaped Bazaar Sitaram brick sewer from Turkman Gate to Ajmeri Gate Master Chamber (via Hauz Quazi) of contract agreement 21(2002-2003) dated 26th November, 2002 executed between petitioner and respondent No.1 which is the subject matter of OMP No.358/2007.

4. The relevant details of claims and the amount awarded in the second award which is subject matter of OMP No.359/2007 would be discussed in later part of my judgment.

5. On 1st September, 2011 when the matters were listed for further arguments, following order was passed by the earlier Bench:

“I have heard these cases at considerable length. While the arguments of the respondent were being heard, I put it to learned senior counsel for the respondent that the awards may not be sustainable and they may require to be set aside on the ground of being patently illegal and opposed to public policy.

Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondent took time to take instructions. He has taken instructions from Mr. Vijay Kataria, the Chairman-cum-Director of respondent no.1, who is present in Court today.

Mr. Gupta submits that the awards, which adjudicate the claims of the respondent even if set aside, the respondent will still be entitled to seek adjudication of its claims. He submits that the respondent does not oppose the present petitions, and concedes that the awards in question are illegal and liable to be set aside. However, he submits that as the claims of the respondent need adjudication, in case the court records any findings or reasons, they may prejudice the rights of the parties in any future proceedings. He, therefore, submits that the Court may not record any reasons for the finding that the awards are patently illegal and opposed to public policy of India, as the respondent admits this finding.

Considering the fact that the prayer made in the two petitions is to seek the setting aside of the two awards, to which the respondent has conceded, in my view, there is no impediment in allowing these petitions.

Accordingly, the two awards, both dated 7th April, 2007 are set aside on the grounds of being patently illegal and opposed to public policy. I am not recording the reasons for my finding since, the respondent has not pressed its opposition to the present petitions by inviting detailed judgment of this Court and wishes to have its claims re-adjudicated by an independent Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court.

The claims of the respondent are remanded for re-adjudication through arbitration. Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, Mobile Nos. 09810972203/09848045472, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in both the cases. The learned arbitrator shall proceed on the basis of the existing record. However, considering the nature of the claims, in case, it is considered necessary the learned Arbitrator may call for expert evidence and learned tribunal may exercise power under Section 26 of the Act, or call for such evidence as he may feel necessary for appropriate adjudication.

Mr. Mishra prays for costs of these proceedings. However, I am not inclined to pass any order at this stage. Since, the matter is remanded back for adjudication, it shall be open to the parties to