Amitava Roy, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the verdict of the learned Single Judge sustaining the challenge of the respondent No. 1 to the maintainability of the proceedings in the court of the Deputy Commissioner, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh, registered on applications lodged by the State appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act) as well as restraint orders passed therein interdicting the related arbitral proceedings, the State is in appeal. Though by the common judgment and order assailed seven writ petitions corresponding to equal number of proceedings before the learned Court below had been disposed of on the same determination appeals only in WP(C) 609/04 (WA 264/04) and WP(C) 9953/03 (WA 265/04) have been preferred.

2. We have heard Mr. C.K. Sharma Baruah, Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh assisted by Mr. S. Shyam, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. P.C. Markanda and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, Senior Advocates, assisted by Mr. Rajesh Markanda, Advocate for the respondent No. 1.

3. It would be essential to first lay the prefatory facts. Following a tender process initiated by the State of Arunachal Pradesh for awarding the works of installing six Micro Hydel Power Projects on turn key basis at different locations, the respondent No. 1 having been adjudged to be most suitable, was settled with the contracts therefor. In addition thereto, the respondent-Company was also awarded the construction works of a water supply scheme in Naharlagun Township in the State. This was in the year 1993. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties out of the related contracts, the respondent-company approached this Court under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolution thereof. This Court after hearing the parties appointed the respondent No. 2 as the sole Arbitrator in all the cases. On such appointment, the Arbitrator embarked on the reference. Names and particulars of the Projects and Arbitration Proceedings for ready reference are extracted herein below.

SI. No. NAME OF PROJECT ARBITRATION CASE NO.

1. Water Supply Scheme of Naharlagun Township 2/20/99 of 2001

2. Sipit Micro Hydel Project (2 x 1 MW) 21/97 of 2001

3. Sidip Micro Hydel Project ( 3 x 1 MW) 4/22/99 of 2001

4. Liromoba Micro Hydel Project ( 2 x 1 MW) 5/23/99 of 2001

5. Mukto Micro Hydel Project (1 x 3 MW) 6/24/99 of 2001

6. Kitpi Micro Hydel Project (3 x 1 MW) 7/25/99 of 2001

7. Nuranang Micro Hydel Projectg (3 x 2 MW) 8/26/99 of 2001

4. In course of the Arbitral Proceedings on the prayer of the respondent-company in Arbitration Case No. 3/21/1999 of 2001 and 4/22/1999 of 2001 pertaining to Sipit Micro Hydel Project and Sidip Micro Hydel Project, the learned Arbitrator passed interim awards on 8.12.2001 awarding a sum of Rs. 2.10 crore and Rs. 3.5 crore respectively in favour of the Contractor, however, subject to the furnishing of Bank Guarantee of the like amounts and on the condition of completing and commissioning the Power Plants within the dates mentioned therein. Accordingly the Bank Guarantees having been furnished by the respondent-company, the State Government deposited the amounts of the interim award with the Arbitrator through a cheque dated 4.10.2002 and a demand draft dated 13.1.2003 both drawn in the name of the Arbitrator. The Bank Guarantees so furnished were initially for a period upto 31.3.2002 and extended thereafter till 28.2.2003.

5. Contending that inspite of such payment the respondent-company had neither shown any progress in the work nor any inclination therefor, the State Government filed two separate applications in the arbitration cases in which the interim awards were passed for extension/invocation of the Bank Guarantees on which the learned Arbitrator did not pass any specific order for which the same lapsed and, therefore, the amounts of the interim awards were rendered unsecured. Instead, the learned Arbitrator proceeded with the h