ORDER

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the Act') impugning an award dated 05.01.2016 (hereafter 'the impugned award') made by the sole arbitrator.

2. The petitioner was awarded the work of "Improvement of storm water drainage in Model Town, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Marsy Land Dhirpur (Dhakka) in Civil Line Zone. Sub Head: Construction of RCC Box precast segment drain along G.T.K. Road" by the work order dated 22.02.2007 issued by the respondent (hereafter 'NDMC').

3. The contractual value of the works was Rs.15,09,13,743/-. The works were to commence on 16.07.2007 and were to be completed within a period of eight months, that is, on or before 15.03.2008. The works were delayed and it is the petitioner's case that the delays were all attributable to NDMC's failure to perform the terms of the agreement.

4. In view of the disputes between the parties, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause by a letter dated 13.02.2008. The petitioner also filed a suit [CS(OS) 507/2008] before this court in respect of the penalty imposed under clause 2 of the agreement in question. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator [Arb. P. 122/2008]. However, in the meantime, the respondent appointed the arbitrator by letter dated 08.04.2008.

5. The arbitrator by a letter dated 26.05.2008 entered upon the reference and issued notice to both the parties, asking them to appear before him on 03.07.2008. On 03.07.2008, the petitioner filed the statement of facts along with the claim petition and NDMC was called upon by the arbitrator to file its counter claim, if any, within a period of one month. Although certain applications were pending before the arbitrator, however, both the parties agreed that the matter may also be set down for final hearing and accordingly, the arbitrator by an order dated 18.08.2009, fixed the matter for final arguments on 14.09.2009. However, on that date and various subsequent dates, the arguments could not be heard on account of various reasons, including on account of adjournments sought by counsel for the NDMC.

6. The petitioner's arguments were heard partly on 23.04.2010 and 29.04.2010 and were finally concluded on 01.02.2011 and the matter was adjourned for hearing NDMC's arguments. The arbitrator heard the arguments advanced on behalf of NDMC on 25.03.2011 and on other subsequent dates as well. The same were finally concluded on 21.09.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 13.10.2011 for petitioner to advance submissions in rebuttal to the arguments made by the NDMC. Arguments on behalf of both the parties were concluded on 28.11.2011 and time was sought by NDMC to file its written submissions. Accordingly the matter was adjourned to 16.12.2011. On that date, that is, 16.12.2011, the counsel for NDMC sought an adjournment and the matter was directed to be listed on 16.01.2012. On 16.01.2012 also, the counsel appearing for NDMC failed to submit the written submissions. However with the consent of both the parties, the matter was reserved for final orders and liberty was granted to NDMC to file the written submissions within a period of two weeks.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 29.11.2012 before the arbitrator seeking permission to place on record the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2010 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, which was heard and orders thereon were reserved on 01.04.2013.

8. Since no effective proceedings (other than relating to the petitioner's application to place CVC's Office Memorandum) had taken place after 28.11.2011, the petitioner filed a petition under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act [OMP(T)(COMM) 23/2015] inter alia praying that the mandate of the arbitrator be held to have been terminated.

9. The aforesaid petition was moved on 21.12.2015 and on which date the learned counsel appearin