Legal misconduct under S.30(a) of the Arbitration Act includes arriving at inconsistent conclusions and ignoring material documents, leading to a manifest error apparent ex facie.

1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Kerala High Court setting aside the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam and restoring the award of the Arbitrator who had earlier refused the claim of the appellant.

2. The appellant (briefly the contractor) was a successful tenderer for construction of three zonal B.C.C. Overhead Reservoirs, two in Mattancherry and one in Cochin, in connection with the Ernakulam Mattancherry Water Supply Scheme. In the Schedule annexed to the notification inviting tenders under the heading 'Site', it was stated that "the soil at the site for Reservoir No.1 and Reservoir No. 2 as loose clay and for Reservoir No..3, Sandy". The tenderer was to execute an agreement on a stamped paper before commencing work. It appears later on the Kerala Engineering Research Institute, Peechi, Sodi Mechanics and Foundation Division (briefly the Research Institute) submitted a report (Ext. P.10 dated September 14, 1965) that the sub-soil at the three places chosen as sites for the reservoirs up to 16 m. showed that the top soil was sand, the middle layer clay, and the bottom layer, silty and or sand. It was stated that the clay found at the three places was of a highly compressible nature and hence pile foundation was preferable and that as the top strata was sandy, jetting had to be resorted to for driving the piles through this strata. After receipt of the opinion of the Research Institute, respondent No. 8 (hereinafter to be described as the Department) gave instructions to the contractor to adopt the process of jetting for driving piles for the tank at Thoppumpady which is alone in dispute in this case. On October 7, 1965, the Chief Engineer after scrutinising the pile design of the contractor wrote to him, inter alia, as follows:

"The piles as per design submitted with raft like cap may be adopted for tank at Thoppumpady where the length of pile suggested by the research division is in the region of 30 ft jetting has to be resorted to in the top strata where sandy layer is met with For statement that piles, or more than 30 ft. length is very difficult to be driven in Ernakulam is not quite convincing to the Department.

Any how a decision will be taken on this only after ascertaining the details regarding the practical difficulties if any from agencies actually engaged in such type of works in the locality.

Meanwhile you may please execute the agreement and start the work on the Reservoir at Thoppumpady receiving further instructions from Executive Engineer, Public Health, Alwaye."(Ext. P. 1).

3. On February 21, 1966, the contractor wrote to the Executive Engineer informing him that as per instructions of the Research Institute and site conditions he provided jetting arrangements for driving the piles although the process of jetting was not included in his tender. He enclosed the details of expenditure on that account and mentioned that for the pile casting he used extra re-enforcement for additionally strengthening the Head of piles due to the site condition. He pointed out that this was not included in his original design. The sum and substance of the contractor's grievance was that he assumed the site condition to be as represented in the schedule to the notification inviting tenders and submitted his original design on that basis and since, however, the site condition was found to be different and on the advice of the Research Institute jetting had to be resorted to involving extra expenditure he was entitled to claim additional amount for the work of jetting. The Department, however, refused the claim which led to the arbitration under Clause.34 of the tender notification. The Arbitrator was the Chief Engineer. It appears the award was based on examination of documents and after hearing arguments of the parties.

4. The award with which we are concerned is a speaking one and gives the reasons for the decision against the contractor. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appe