Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, Union of India, appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. By means of the present Appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of the District Judge, Bareily, dated 4th March, 2013 by which he has rejected the objection filed by the Garrison Engineer-II, Bareily Cant, Bareily against the order of the award dated 9.10.1998, given by the sole Arbitrator Lt. Colenal S.B. S. Chauhan, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,39,400/- towards loss of profit, Rs. 28,000/- towards claim for the work done, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of advance and Rs. 30,000/- towards the expenses incurred into during the period when the work remained suspended.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy in view of Section 870 of the General Conditions of the Contract (GCC), which clearly provides that the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to adjudicate only those claims or controversies in respect of which, the decision of any other authority, under the contract, is expressed to be final. Since in Clause 7 of the Act, internal remedy was available and the decision of the concerned authority was final, therefore, the learned Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as it fell within the ‘expected matters’. He further submitted that since the respondent-contractor failed to execute the contract, therefore, in exercise of power conferred by Clause 54 of I.A.F.W.-2249, the left over work was got completed through another agency, namely, M/s. Kunal Enterprises, Bareily, which was got completed on 24th February, 1998, but in getting the work completed through another agency, the department suffered a loss of Rs. 3,69,468-50/-, thus, the contractor was liable to pay that amount to the department while instead of compensating the department by making award in favour of the department for the loss suffered by it, the award has been made in favour of the opposite party-contractor.

4. I have considered submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Bareily and the award as well as the materials on record.

5. The admitted facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant for the construction of 12 Single JCOs accommodation for ASC School at Bareily, invited tenders from the registered contractors. The respondent-contractor’s tender, being lowest, was accepted on 11th January, 1996 for an amount of Rs. 13,93,336-53/-. The date of the commencement of the work was 29th January, 1996 and the date of completion of the work was 28th November, 1996. The construction work was to be performed as per the site plan. As per the respondent, they intended to complete the work at the earliest, therefore, immediately started preparatory work for procurement of men and materials, did boring of well for water supply etc. On 2nd February, 1996, the respondent-contractor was advised not to go ahead till further decision and in the end of February, 1996, the contractor was supplied another drawing with revised lay out. As per the contractor, they again started preliminary works, made burgis, storage tank, mixing platform, borewell etc. earth work for foundation was also done. While digging work was in progress, it came to the notice that there was a rising main underneath across the main building and again the Garrison Engineer advised the respondent-contractor not to proceed with the work. As per the respondent-contractor, various letters were written to the Garrison Engineer/Chief Works Engineer between March to June, 1996, requesting therein to provide revised site-plan as his entire staff, labour and establishment was idle. On 19th July, 1996, yet another further revised site-plan was sent to the respondent-contractor. As per the respondent-contractor, the said revised site plan was altogether different compared to original site plan and it had been given after