Charanjit Talwar ( 1 ) M/s Om Metals and Minerals (P) Ltd. , filed the petition under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act seeking direction that the learned Arbitrators be asked to file their award in the Court and thereafter the award be made a rule of the Court, Oh notice being issued to the parties the Union of India, respondent herein, filed objections to the award which were registered as 1. A. 2052 of 1982. The petitioner herein has filed reply to the objections. ( 2 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following seven issues were framed on llth July, 1983: 1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition ? O. P. Petitioner. 2. Whether the arbitrator is required by the arbitration agreement to give reasons for the award ? If so, to what effect ? O. P. Objector. 3. If issue No. 2 is held against the objector whether there is any error of law apparent on the face of the award ? O. P. Objector. 4. Whether the arbitrators have anti-dated the award and thus misconducted themselves and the proceedings ? O. P. Objector. 5. Whether the demand by Shri M. N. Venkatesan arbitrator of fees amounts to legal misconduct ? O. P. Objector. 6. Whethar Shri M. N. Venkatasan was prejudiced against the objector by reason of non-payment of fees demanded by him ? O. P. Objector. 7. Relief. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the parties agreed that evidence be led by way of affidavits. Objector as well as the petitioner have filed their affidavits. ( 4 ) IN the view which I am taking it is not necessary to deal with issues 2 to 6. This Court, it appears, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Relevant facts which lead me to this conclusion are as follows : (1) That the commercial contract in question, a copy of which has been filed on record and marked A was executed between the Executive Engineer, Salal Dam Division on behalf of the President of India and the petitioner herein at Jyotipuram (Riasi ). (2) The work was to be executed at Jyotipuram (Riasi) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This work was to be completed within six months. (2) The work was to be executed at Jyotipuram (Riasi) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This work was to be completed within six months. The estimated cost was rupees eighteen lacs; (3) The payments as per the contract were to be made at Jammu. ( 5 ) I may note that the name of the work is "design, Manufacture, Supply, Delivery at place of installation and Complete erection at site of Diversion Tunnel Gates and Embedded parts-Salal Hydel Project at Dhyangarh. " It is the admitted case of the parties that Dhyangarh is in the District of Riasi at Jyotipuram in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. ( 6 ) ISSUE No. 1 relating to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is in fact covered by two Full Bench decisions of this Court. The first decision is reported in Mrs. Gupta Sanitary Stores v. Union of India and another1 and the second is reported in Sh. Kuldeep Singh v. Union of India and others* In Mrs. Gupta Sanitary Stores case, Avadh Behari Rohtagi, J. , speaking for the Full Bench, while giving examples of the construction works which could not be considered to fall within the business activities of the Government, has observed : "51. For example, construction of dam does not amount to carrying on business by the government. Associated Commercial Engineers v. State of M. P3 The court held that the plaintiff has not placed any material to show that the construction of dam was only a business proposition and not duty cast on the State under the directive principles of State Policy". ( 7 ) THE case of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Associated Commercial Engineers case. referred to in the Full Bench decision, is on all fours applicable to the instant case. In that case also the contract related to a dam which was to be contracted at Tawa in Hoshangabad District. The first principle which was laid down in the said case was that construction of a dam did not amount to carrying on business by the Government. The Division Bench in that case held : "under the directive principles of the Constitution, State is required to promote welfare of the people, economicactivity and proper development of the State so as to promote agriculture and industries in order to improve living conditions of the people and expand social and cultural activities. The Division Bench in that case held : "under the directive principles of the Constitution, State is required to promote welfare of the people, economicactivity and proper development of the State so as to promote agriculture and industries in order to improve living conditions of the people and expand social and cultural activities. The plaintiff, under the circumstances, should have placed material to show that the construction of Tawa Project was only a business proposition and not under any of the duties cast on the State under the directive principles of the Constitution. In the absence of any material on record it cannot be said that construction of dam is a business activity by the State. A suit based on contract can be filed (i) at a place where the contract was made or (ii) where breach was committed. " ( 8 ) IN Kuldeep Singh s case (supra), Rajinder Sachar, J. speaking for the Full Bench has stated that the law laid down in Mrs. Gupta Sanitary Stores case is the correct law. ( 9 ) THE legal position thus is that the construction work relating to a dam cannot be considered a business activity of the Government and in that view of the matter simply because the seat of the Union Government is at Delhi, the suit cannot be instituted in Delhi Courts. ( 10 ) FOLLOWING the law laid down in the above-said two Pull Bench decisions I hold issue No, 1 against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent-objector. Consequently, the petition and the documents filed with it are directed to be returned to the petitioner to be presented to a competent Court. ( 11 ) MR. Dutta appenring for the Objector submits that the proper Court in which this suit ought to have been filled would be the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. ( 12 ) I further direct that the file of the Arbitrators be returned to them forthwith. ( 13 ) NO. order as to costs Augst 6, 1886.