O. N. VOHRA ( 1 ) "in the event of an order under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 should the matter go back to the game arbitrator who gave the award", Is the short but nevertheless interesting question that has fallen for determination. ( 2 ) AS regards facts there is no dispute. Dr. Bakshish Singh was functioning as Additional Legal Advisor to the Government of India, Ministry of Law, when he was appointed arbitrator and he continued to hold that position at the time of making and publishing of the award. Thereafter, he resigned from his post and at present he Is a practising Advocate. According to Mr. Rattan Lal, the appointment of Dr. Bakshish Singh as Arbitrator was made by virtue of his being Additional Legal Advisor and Inasmuch as he is no longer holding that position this matter should not go to him. In so tar as this contention goes, it is difficult to agree. The relevant arbitration clause contained in document marked C-30 (page 9) speaks of reference to sole arbitration of any person appointed by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry or the Department of the Government of India administratively dealing with the contract at the time of such appointment, or if there be no Secretary, the Administrative Head of such Ministry or Department at the time of such appointment. It is manifest that there was no such shackle as alleged by the counsel. According to the plain reading, any person regardless of his being in the employment of any Ministry or Department of Government of India could be appointed arbitrator. ( 3 ) MR. D. K, Sayal by relying upon sub-section (1) of Section 16, which says that Court may from time to time remit the award or any matter referred to arbitration to the arbitrators or umpire upon such terms as it thinks fit, contends that the use of the word the before "arbitrators or umpire is significant and the only reasonable con- struction that should be placed would be that it is the arbitrator who gave the award who shall re-consider the matter on remittance. On being told as to what would happen if the arbitrator is no longer in existence, the learned counsel says that that would be an exception to the rule. I do not agree. On being told as to what would happen if the arbitrator is no longer in existence, the learned counsel says that that would be an exception to the rule. I do not agree. One has to go through the agreement of arbitration and, if need be, the provisions of the Arbitration Act to get the answer. The arbitration clause would show that in the event of the arbitrator denying, neglecting or refusing to act, or resigning or being unable to act for any reason or his award being set aside by the Court for any reason, it shall be lawful for the said Secretary or the Head of the Department to appoint another arbitrator in place of the outgoing arbitrator in the manner aforesaid and the person so appointed will be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage it was left at by his predecessor This being the case, what remains to be seen is whether it is a case of setting aside of the award or not. In the instant case objections against the award made by Dr. Bakshish Singh were that he had misconducted himself in the proceedings and that the award is vitiated by an error of law patent on the record. In the course of enquiry it was found that Dr. Bakshish Singh had diasllowed the claim of the Union of India on the short ground that risk purchase could be made within a period of six months reckoned from the date of breach but that was not the case here. The result was rejection of the claim. This finding was found to be grossly incorrect and against the record, and, accordingly, finding was recorded that the award was liable to be set aside and that it suffered from an error which was transparent. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the instant case is one where the award has been set aside. Section 30 of the Arbitration Act which enumerates the grounds on which an award can be set aside mentions in Clause (c) "is otherwise invalid", This being so, setting aside of the award fell within that clause. The facts of the instant case were peculiar inasmuch as the arbitrator had formulated a proposition which itself was erroneous and made the award which suffered from the same vice. He did not go into the merits of the case. The facts of the instant case were peculiar inasmuch as the arbitrator had formulated a proposition which itself was erroneous and made the award which suffered from the same vice. He did not go into the merits of the case. In that sense he left undetermined matters referred to arbitration within the meaning of Section 16 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act and it was for this reason that order remitting the award was passed. In my opinion, the provisions contained in Section 30 and Section 16 are not mutually exclusive. Section 30 Is mandatory in character. Award can be set aside in the circumstances enumerated therein and in no other way. The same is, however, not the case with Section 16 on account of the use of the word may . The position that thus emerges is that the Court may by acting under Section 30 set aside an award and leave it to the parties to have recourse to arbitration in case the arbitration agreement survives. The Court may go further and remit the award for reconsideration if the matter also falls under Section 16. This is the conclusion which follows by adopting the rule of harmonious interpretation of the two provisions. I am not inclined to agree that the award is never set aside when it is remitted. It depends upon the facts of the individual cases. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons foregoing, I would agree with Mr. Rattan Lal that direction should be given to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, to appoint another arbitrator in place of Dr. Bakshish Singh. Ordered, accordingly.