JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the order of the Additional District Judge Sri Ganganagar referred to set aside the award dated September 15, 1969, made by Shri K.N. Sharma, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, State of Rajasthan. The facts of the case are that the respondent Messers. Sharma and Company entered into an agreement with the State of Rajasthan for the construction of Head and Cross Regulator at R.D. 68900 of Rajasthan Canal. This agreement was executed by the respondent on the one hand and by the Executive Engineer, R.C.P. Desert Division Suratgarh, on behalf of the State of Rajasthan on the other, on March 28, 1962. As per terms of the agreement, the work was to be commenced on February 5, 1962 and completed by June 30, 1962. Extension of time upto January 19, 1963 was sought for and was granted vide letter dated November 12, 1963 of the Chief Engineer, Rajasthan Canal Project, Jaipur. The work was completed by the respondent within the extended period. Since certain items of claims were not included in the final bill prepared subsequently, the respondent claimed of payment of the omitted items. When the claim of the respondent was not accepted by the State of Rajasthan, the former moved an application under section 8 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator to settle the disputes between the parties Notice of this application was given to the State of Rajasthan, which opposed the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, in whose court the application was filed, after hearing the parties allowed the application and appointed Shri R.L. Malhotra, retired Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation, Rajasthan as the sole arbitrator. Aggrieved by this order, the State of Rajasthan went to the High Court in revision. This revision was decided on November 21, 1968, on a joint application presented by the parties. Aggrieved by this order, the State of Rajasthan went to the High Court in revision. This revision was decided on November 21, 1968, on a joint application presented by the parties. The learned Judge of this Court ordered as under,- "Accordingly, I allow the revision application in part and while maintaining the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar, dated 11.7.1966 in so far as he has ordered the making of a reference to arbitration, I modify that order in terms of the application filed by the parties and direct that in place of Shri R.L. Malhotra, the dispute shall now be referred by the trial court to Shri K.N. Sharma, Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R) Jaipur as sole arbitrator for his decision in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act. The application may be sent to trial court for the purpose. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this revision application." The trial court accordingly appointed Shri K.N. Sharma to be sole arbitrator in the case and directed him to file his award within a period of four months. On the request of the arbitrator time was extended upto September 15, 1969. The arbitrator gave his award on September 15, 1969, which runs as under:- AWARD Subject:- In the matter or arbitration between M/s. Sharma & Co., partnership firm situated at 80 B Block, Sri Ganganagar (Petitioner) v. State of Rajasthan (Non petitioner) Agreement No. 2 of 1961-62 for the work of constructing Head and Cross Regulator at R.D. 68900 Rajasthan Canal. Whereas I, K.N. Sharma Chief Engineer, P.W.D.(B&R) Rajasthan, Jaipur was appointed as Sole Arbitrator of the disputes between aforesaid parties for the execution of Rajasthan Canal Head & Cross Regulator as per letter No. 674 dated 7.12.1968 of Additional District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, give my award under the terms of the agreement. AND WHEREAS I took upon myself the burden of the said reference on 27.12.1968. AND WHEREAS the Hon'ble Additional District judge, Sri Ganganagar was pleased to enlarge the time for making of the award upto 15.9.1969. AND WHEREAS I took upon myself the burden of the said reference on 27.12.1968. AND WHEREAS the Hon'ble Additional District judge, Sri Ganganagar was pleased to enlarge the time for making of the award upto 15.9.1969. After hearing, examining and considering the statement of both the parties and the oral and documentary evidence produced before me by them and having given consideration to all facts and documents with due care, I make my award as follows:- Shri S.S. Bhupal, Executive Engineer, Gang Canal, Division, Sri Ganganagar, officer-in-charge on behalf of the State of Rajasthan in his counter statement raised a law point that as no valid agreement as required by article 299 of the Constitution of India was executed between the claimant & the State of Rajasthan I have got no jurisdiction to arbitrate in the matter. He requested that this issue should be decided first. I have been appointed arbitrator by the High Court to arbitrate in the matter as such, I have got jurisdiction to arbitrate in the matter. 1. (a) Rehandling of earth within 50 ft. Claim is rejected. (b) Item No. 5 of the Bill carriage of pucca bricks from kiin R.D. 72 to the site distance 1/2 mile. Claim is rejected. (c) Item No. 6 of the Bill Carriage of Cement bags from stone RD 69500 to the site distance 600. Calim is rejected. (d) Item No. 7&8 carriage of 3 A.M. bricks. Claim is allowed for Rs. 11,400/-. (e) Item No. 12 of final bill vertical centring. Claim is rejected. (f) Item No. 13 of the final bill horizontal centring. Claim is rejected. (g) Item No. 14 of final Bill reinforcement including binding and placing the dam in position. Claim is rejected. (h) Item No. 15 of the final bill of RCC work. Claim is rejected. (i) Item No. 16 of final bill cement concrete 1:4:8. claim is rejected. (j) Cement concrete 1:2:4 as per item No. 17&18 of the final bill. Claim is rejected. (k) Item No. 19&20 cement concrete 1:3:6. Claim is rejected. (l) Item No. 21 cement concrete 1:4:8. Claim is rejected. (m) Curing which has not been paid for at all. Claim is rejected. (n) The sum of Rs. 4000/- is due to claimants on account of balance of security deposit deducted at the rate of 100/- of the total amount paid as Running bills. Claim is rejected. (l) Item No. 21 cement concrete 1:4:8. Claim is rejected. (m) Curing which has not been paid for at all. Claim is rejected. (n) The sum of Rs. 4000/- is due to claimants on account of balance of security deposit deducted at the rate of 100/- of the total amount paid as Running bills. Security deposit, as per final bill prepared is to be refunded after adjusting for recoveries, if any. (2) Amount of Rs. 1608.11 recovered from the final bill on account of excess consumption of stone grit. Claim is rejected. (3) Recovery of Rs. 445/88 towards carriage of stone grit sand to have been consumed in excess. Claim is rejected. (4) Interest at 6% per annum on the total sum payable. Interest is not allowed. (5) Cost of the proceedings. The parties to bear their own cost. The Stamp Duty charges payable in respect of this award shall be borne by the claimant. Given and signed by me at Jaipur on the 15th day of September, 1969. Sd/- (K.N.Sharma), Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R), Rajasthan, Jaipur. "(ARBITRATOR)" 2. The arbitrator informed the Court as well as the parties about the making of the award. He also sent the award to the Court which received it on September 29, 1969. The State of Rajasthan then moved an objection petition purporting to be under sections 14 and 17 read with section 30 and 33 of the Act. 3. The main objections raised by the State of Rajasthan were firstly, that the agreement entered into between the parties on March 28, 1961 and which contained the arbitration clause, was illegal and unenforceable due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. Another objection raised on behalf of the State of Rajasthan was that the arbitrator allowed Rs. 11,400/- without assigning any reasons and without any evidence. Some more objections were raised but they need not be mentioned here, as they were not pressed during course of arguments before me in this appeal. 4. The trial court held that the arbitration agreement was not in conformity with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution and therefore it was invalid & void. Some more objections were raised but they need not be mentioned here, as they were not pressed during course of arguments before me in this appeal. 4. The trial court held that the arbitration agreement was not in conformity with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution and therefore it was invalid & void. It further held that since the State of Rajasthan did not raise this objection in the proceeding under section 8 of the Act (Case No. 5 of 1967) the plea that the agreement was violative of Article 299 was barred by res judicata. The trial court, on II point, held that it has no jurisdiction to investigate into the merits of the case and to examine the documentary and oral evidence in record for the purpose of finding out whether or not the arbitrator has committed any error. It was also observed that in an application under section 30 of the Act, the court has not to consider whether the view of the arbitration on the evidence is justified. In the result, the learned trial court rejected the objections made on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, and passed a decree for Rs. 11,400/- with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of the decree on the said sum till realisation. it is against this order or decree that the State of Rajasthan has filed this appeal. 5. Mr. Calla, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that the trial court has come to a definite conclusion that the arbitration agreement was not in conformity with Article 299 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above finding, Mr. Calla submits that in absence of any valid agreement, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to give the award. His further argument is that Article 299 of the Constitution of India is based on public policy for the protection of general public and the formalities mentioned in that Article cannot be waived or dispensed with and the plea of rectification or estoppel cannot succeed. In the circumstances, it is urged that the learned Judge ought to have held that the provisions of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable, to the facts of the present case. 6. In the circumstances, it is urged that the learned Judge ought to have held that the provisions of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable, to the facts of the present case. 6. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that the State of Rajasthan took no plea that agreement was violative of Article 299 of the Constitution in the proceedings under section 8 of the Act. It is further urged that the trial court allowed the application under section 8 of the Act and appointed Mr. R.L. Malhotra to be the sole arbitrator for deciding the point of dispute between the parties. Dissatisfied with the said order, the State of Rajasthan went in revision to the High Court. Both the parties before the high Court, made a joint application for referring the matter to arbitration to Mr. K.N. Sharma. In pursuance of this joint application moved on behalf of the parties, the High Court ordered that the dispute shall be referred by the trial court to Mr. K.N. Sharma. It is argued that in view of this consent order by which the matter was referred to arbitration to Mr. K.N. Sharma, no question of violation of Article 299 of the Constitution arises in the present case. 7. Section 30 of the Act runs as under:- "30. Ground for setting aside award. An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds namely:- (a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings; (b) that an award has been made after issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after the arbitration proceedings have become invalid under section 35; (c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid." This section provides that the award shall not be set aside except on one of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (c). But this does not mean that if the reference itself is invalid it cannot be challenged and set aside in an application under section 30 of the Act. It is well settled that the requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution are mandatory and it is from the terms of the arbitration agreement that the arbitrator derives his authority to arbitrate. It is well settled that the requirements of Article 299 of the Constitution are mandatory and it is from the terms of the arbitration agreement that the arbitrator derives his authority to arbitrate. If, in law there is no valid arbitration agreement, the proceedings by the arbitrator would be unauthorised. In the present case, the State of Rajasthan raised on objection before the arbitrator that the agreement was invalid on account of its being violative of Article 299 of the Constitution. This objection was decided against the State of Rajasthan by the arbitrator on the ground that he has not derived the authority to make the award from the agreement entered into between the parties but from the consent order passed by the High Court. it is not the case of the appellant that the state of Rajasthan had no authority to make a joint application before the High Court to refer the matter for arbitration to the sole arbitrator Mr. K.N.Sharma. It was on account of this joint application moved on behalf of the parties that the high Court directed the trial court to refer the matter to the sole arbitration of Mr.K.N. Sharma. In these circumstances, the question of arbitration agreement being violative of Article 299 of the Constitution does not arise. 8. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that the arbitrator found Rs. 11,400/- to be due to the respondent without assigning any reasons and without discussing evidence. It is further contended that it is not clear from the award how the arbitrator arrived at this figure. In this connection, suffice it to say, that in deciding the dispute, an arbitrator need not record his reasons and he need not indicate on what principles he was given the award. It is only when the arbitrator proceeds to give his reasons or to lay down principles on which he arrived at his decision that the Court is competent to examine whether he has proceeded contrary to law and the award is liable to be interferred with if such error in law is apparent on the face of the award itself. It is only when the arbitrator proceeds to give his reasons or to lay down principles on which he arrived at his decision that the Court is competent to examine whether he has proceeded contrary to law and the award is liable to be interferred with if such error in law is apparent on the face of the award itself. It has been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bungo Steel Furniture (Pvt) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 378 that "it is now a well settled principles that if an arbitrator, in deciding a dispute before him does not record his reasons and does not indicate the principles of law on which he has proceeded, the award is not on that account vitiated. it is only when the arbitrator proceeds to give his reasons or to lay down principles on which he has arrived at this decisions that the Court is competent to examine whether he has proceeded contrary to law and is entitled to interfere if such error in law is apparent on the face of the award itself." In the present case the award shows that the arbitrator rejected severalitems claimed by the respondent, but he allowed the respondent's claim to a sum of Rs. 11,400/-. The arbitrator's adjudication is generally considered binding between the parties as he is a Tribunal selected by the parties and the power of the Court to set aside the award is restricted to the grounds set out in section 30 of the Act. It is not open to the Court to speculate where no reasons are given by the arbitrator as to what impelled him to arrive at this conclusions. It is not open to the Court to attempt to probe the mental process by which the arbitrator has arrived at this conclusion, where it is not disclosed by the terms of his award. In this connection, I am supported in my view by another decision of the Supreme Court in Jivrajbhai Ujamshi Seth and others v. Chintemarrao Balaji and others, AIR 1965 SC 214 . 9. There is no force in this appeal and is hereby rejected with costs. *******