The court's interpretation of the concession agreement and reliance on the correct survey data were crucial in determining the validity of the Arbitral Tribunal's award.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-This appeal arises out of order dated 17.01.2006 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the objections raised by respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 "the Act", for short) has been allowed and the award dated 012.2003, passed in favour of the appellant, by the learned Arbitral Tribunal has been set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case are that by 1997, in Bharatpur the road going from Bharatpur to Mathura passed through a highly congested area of the city. Therefore, the Public Works Department (henceforth to be referred as the respondents) were satisfied that a Bharatpur Bye-pass (the project, for short) needs to be constructed. According to respondents, the project would consist of the Bye-pass from Bharatpur to Mathura (Km. 4/553) to Bharatpur-Jaipur Road, National Highway 11 (Km 59/800). The length of the Bye-pass would be 10.850 Kms. The project would also include the Bharatpur-Deeg Road. The Bharatpur-Deeg Road covered only 1.25 Kms of the total project of 10.850 Kms. (This is essential to spell out at this juncture as one of the two controversies in this case revolves around the Bharatpur-Deeg segment of the project.

3. Since due to financial constraint, the respondents were unable to construct the said project on their own, they invited tenders for the project. The project was to be done on the basis of Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT, for short). In response thereto, the appellant filed their tender on 26.09.1997 and quoted the cost of the project as Rs. 1,325 lacs with a total concession period as 111 months (9 years and 3 months), i.e. from 07.01.1999 to 06.04.2008, from the date of handing over the land till the handing over the facility to the respondents. However, prior to the finalization of the bid, on 04.08.1997, a Pre-Bid Conference took place where the respondents gave clarifications sought by the various bidders, including the levy and collection of toll on the Bharatpur-Deeg Section of the Bye-pass. Since the Bharatpur-Deeg Section of the Bye-pass was a short one, as pointed out above, doubts were raised whether the bidders will be allowed to levy and collect toll on his Section or not. During the Conference, the respondents agreed that tool would be levied and collected for this Section as well. It was also clarified by the respondents that in breach of contract, the amount of compensation would have to be worked out keeping in view the investments made by the entrepreneur.

4. On 05.02.1998, the financial bid was opened; on 25.07.1998 the respondents sent the letter of acceptance to the appellant. The appellant was called upon to furnish performance security deposit, which they did. Thereafter, on 19.08.1998, the appellant and the respondent entered into a Concession Agreement-agreement for authorizing collection fee (Toll) by the concessionaire. According to the said agreement, the appellant was to recover the investment through levy of fees toll on all the users on the basis of fix tariff rate as prescribed by the Government published in the official gazette. The land was handed over by the respondents to the appellant on 07.01.1999. Therefore, the total concession period including the construction was from 07.01.1999 to 06.04.2008. However, the appellant completed the project on 10.04.2000 itself .

5. The said Bharatpur Bye-pass constructed by the appellant, was inaugurated on 12.04.2000. However, while inaugurating the said project, the then Chief Minister announced that no toll would be levied on vehicle plying over the Bharatpur-Deeg Section of the Bye-pass. Since the respondents had represented to the appellant that they would be permitted to levy toll and all the vehicles utilizing the Bharatpur-Deeg Section of the Bye-pass, the announcement by then Chief Minister took the appellant by surprise. Immediately, the appellant wrote to the respondents about the exorbitant loss that they would suffer if the announcemen