Judgment :- 1. The appellant was the contractor for the construction of shopping centre at Vallikudi Panchayat under the terms of the agreement dated 14-7-1978. The work was to be completed by 5-1-1979. As the work was not completed within the time the agreement was cancelled by notice dated 22-9-1979. The dispute that arose on the claims made by the appellant was referred for arbitration. The second respondent, the Executive Engineer preferred counter claim. The third respondent Arbitrator filed the award in court. A decree in terms of the award was granted by the court rejecting the objections raised by the appellant. The appeal is directed against that order of the lower court dated 19-12-1981 in O.P. (Arbitration) No. 78 of 1981. 2. One of the claims made by the appellant was that the respondents may be directed to receive back the balance departmental materials from the site and the appellant may be liable for damages if any caused to the materials due to the lapse of time. This claim was not allowed pointing out that the claimant did not avail of the opportunity to return the materials to the respondents after the preliminary hearing. The appellant claimed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the loss of form work and stagging materials and materials stacked for concreting as item No. 1. The Arbitrator awarded the amount of Rs. 2000/- under this item. Regarding the counter claim the award is that the Respondent shall be entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 34,704.30 towards cost of materials issued to the claimant but not returned by him to be stored. The award is a non-speaking award. The appellant sought to have the award set aside for the reason that the Arbitrator acted without jurisdiction and the award is vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record. 3. What is contended before us is that there had been no proper reference for Arbitration, the reasons stated by Arbitrator for not allowing claim No. 4 is incorrect, the counter claim being in excess of the contract amount, would not be allowed and there is legal misconduct in refusing to consider the documents produced before the Arbitrator. 4. The first contention that the claims were not raised before the Rural Development Board and had not ripened into a dispute for reference to the Arbitrator cannot be countenanced. 4. The first contention that the claims were not raised before the Rural Development Board and had not ripened into a dispute for reference to the Arbitrator cannot be countenanced. No such objection regarding jurisdiction has been taken up before the lower court. The appellant who had participated in the proceedings before the Arbitrator without any protest thereby waiving the objection, if any, relating to jurisdiction is estopped from raising such an objection before this Court for the first time in appeal. We, therefore, reject that contention. 5. The award being a non-speaking one the appellant has necessarily to make out that there was misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator in ignoring any statutory provisions. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dandasi Sahu, 1988 (2) K.L.J. 323, the law as it stands today is that awards without reasons are not bad per se. Indeed, an award can be set aside only on the ground of misconduct or on an error of law apparent on the face of the award, or if the arbitrator travelled beyond his jurisdiction set by the terms of the contract (vide Continental Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of M. P., A. I. R.1988 S. C. 1166). The only fact that the award is not a speaking award, does not, according to the law as it stands now, render it invalid. Either party could have alleged and proved the vitiating circumstances like those mentioned above. The appellant had neither pleaded nor proved any of them. 6. The counter claim was allowed by the Arbitrator without setting out the details of the claim in the award. It is not necessary for the Arbitrator to set out such details in the non-speaking award. The respondents had in their counter statement raised counter claims to the extent of over Rs. 70000/-. The appellant had notice of such counter claims. He did not choose to file any replication in respect of them. The Arbitrator allowed part of the claim on account of retention of departmental materials. The only fact that the cost of such materials as on the date of the award exceeded the probable amount of contract is no reason to hold that the Arbitrator committed an error apparent on the award, or that he misconducted himself of the proceedings or that he exceeded the jurisdiction set by the terms of the contract. The only fact that the cost of such materials as on the date of the award exceeded the probable amount of contract is no reason to hold that the Arbitrator committed an error apparent on the award, or that he misconducted himself of the proceedings or that he exceeded the jurisdiction set by the terms of the contract. The court is not expected to delve into the mind of the Arbitrator, draw inference as to his reasoning, find fault with the same and set aside the award for that reason. The appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.