Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—This appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1996”) has come up at the instance of claimant appellant against judgment and order dated 15.1.2009 passed by Sri Amar Singh Chauhan, District Judge, Bhadohi in Misc. Arbitration case No. 1 of 2002 whereby the Court below has allowed respondent’s application under Section 34 of Act 1996 and set aside award dated 31.7.2002 delivered by Sri S.C. Attri, sole Arbitrator (retired Superintending Engineer), U.P. Jal Nigam, Meerut.

2. Facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that UP Jal Nigam, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as “UPJN”) invited tenders to carry out certain works pursuant whereto, appellant submitted tender alongwith terms, conditions, specification of items of works against lump sum rate of Rs. 15,25,000/-. The tender was submitted by appellant vide letter dated 22.8.1984. In the aforesaid letter one of the conditions mentioned, read as under:

“All disputes, if any arises, will be settled through arbitration.”

3. Respondent UPJN accepted the tender vide letter dated 3.6.1985, after negotiation with appellant with regard to reduction of certain rates. In original tender, supply of material was to be made at Divisional Store, Varanasi whereas the appellant in his letter dated 22.8.1984 had specified it at the site of work. Respondents vide letter dated 3.6.1985, subject to reduction of certain rates, accepted tender offered by appellant, without expressing any disagreement with respect to condition contained in tender letter submitted by appellant that all disputes shall be settled by Arbitration.

4. Subsequently, parties executed formal agreement on the standard form of agreement, containing conditions of contract. After completion of work, the appellant sought payment for extra work done at the request of Department and when failed, he requested for appointment of an Arbitrator, vide letter dated 2.9.1997. Thereafter he preferred writ petition 13903 of 1997 which was disposed of vide order dated 28.4.1997 which reads as under:

“The petitioner alleges that certain payments are yet due to it on account of work which was done under certain contract.

If such is the case, the writ petition does not lie because the petitioner has remedy under the common law. However, Shri Sandeep Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner said that petitioner’s representation is pending which may be directed to be disposed of expeditiously.

The representation can always be asked to be disposed of expeditiously and it is so directed accordingly. Shri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned Standing Counsel has been heard in opposition.

Witht he aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.”

5. Pursuant to Court’s order dated 28.4.1997, respondent No. 1, Deputy Manager (Legal Cell) vide letter dated 22.2.1998 required Superintending Engineer to suggest three names of officers for appointing one of them as Arbitrator.

6. Subsequently, Chief Engineer UPJN sent a letter dated 20.4.1998 requiring appellant to suggest three names for further action. Chief Engineer vide letter dated 23.4.1998 accepted Sri S.C. Attri, a Retired Superintending Engineer, for being appointed as Arbitrator but since Headquarters of UPJN did not take any further action, the petitioner again approached this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13749 of 1999 which was disposed of on 2.4.1999 with the following direction:

“Heard.

This petition is disposed of with the direction to the authority concerned to decide the representation of petitioner dated 2.8.97, 3.9.97 and 25.4.98 within two months in accordance with law.”

7. The Chief Engineer, UPJN then informed that Sri S.C. Attri has been appointed as Arbitrator and directed Superintending Engineer to take further action for attending hearing before him. The appellant submitted his claim to Arbitrator on 4.4.2002. Respondent filed written statement dated 17.5.2002. Thereafter, appella