JUDGMENT : G.B. Pattnaik, J. - This is an appeal u/s 39 of the Arbitration Act against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, who by the impugned judgment made the Award of the Arbitrator a rule of the Court, rejecting the objections filed by the State. 2. The respondent is a contractor who entered into an agreement with appellant No. 1 for laying of pipes in the Fertiliser Project, Public Health Division, Talcher. As certain dispute arose, on an application being filed, Shri Justice H. Mohapatra, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court, was appointed as an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave an Award for a sum of Rs. 9,24,364/-together with interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum with effect from 21-3-1976, that is, the due date of payment. After an Award was passed the claimant filed an application for making the Award a rule of the Court and the State filed abjection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to set aside the Award. There is no dispute that the Award is a no reasoned Award and, therefore, the scope of interference with the same by the Civil Court is very limited. Before the Subordinate Judge, seven objections were raised, but the learned Subordinate Judge did not find any substance in any of those objections since according to him the Award being a lump sum amount and the Arbitrator having not assigned any reason for the same, the Court cannot interfere with the same by making a probe into the mental process of the Arbitrator to find out the reasons. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State raises three contentions before me in this appeal : i) The claim of the Contractor having been paid by the Indian Hume Pipes, the Arbitrator could not have allowed the same claim over again against the State and at any rate though the State filed a petition before the Arbitrator to summon the officer of the Indian Hume Pipes, the Arbitrator committed misconduct in not sun moning the said officer and this constitutes gross misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. ii) The total amount which has been awarded together with interest thereon is twice the tendered amount and on the face of it exhibits the arbitrariness of the Arbitrator in awarding the sard sum; and iii) in any event, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award Interest from a date prior to the date of reference. 4. Coming to the first contention, I find that there was no privity of contract between the claimant-contractor and the Indian Hume Pipes. The dispute in question was in relation to the agreement between the Contractor and the State and that dispute had been referred for arbitration. There Is, therefore, no substance, in the argument of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Contractor had received the said amount from the Indian Hume Pipes, the second aspect of the said contention is also devoid of force since it has been found from the order sheet of the learned Arbitrator that though an application was filed before the Arbitrator to summon the officer of the Indian Hume Pipes, but that petition was not pressed and in the order-sheet itself, the concerned Executive Engineer as well as the counsel appearing for the State also gave their signatures. In that view of the matter, no grievance can be made by the State on that score and accordingly, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate. 5. Coming to the second submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, even if the amount awarded together with interest thereon may work out to be twice the tendered value, but that by itself would not constitute any misconduct; on the part of the Arbitrator nor would it be an error of law apparent on the face of the award so as to give jurisdiction to the Court to interfere with the same. If the amount has become so much, it is because of the inaction on the part of the State Government in not paying the amount for all these years. An Award cannot be interfered with on this ground. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, must be rejected. 6. If the amount has become so much, it is because of the inaction on the part of the State Government in not paying the amount for all these years. An Award cannot be interfered with on this ground. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, must be rejected. 6. So far as the third sub mission of the learned counsel is concerned, by now there has been series of decisions of this Court both of single judge as wall as Division Bench relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court taking the view that the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to award interest from the date when the amount falls due. See 48 (1977) C. L. T. 555 The Executive Engineer. Rural Engineering Division Cuttack West, Cuttack v. Surendranath Kanungo : Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan Vs. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, Firm Madanlal Roshanlal v. Hukum Chand Mills Ltd. Union of India (UOI) Vs. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd.. In this view of the matter, it is not open for me to take a different view. The said contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate, therefore, must be rejected. 7. In the result, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants fail and this appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed