JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of Senior Sub-Judge, Solan, in case No. 1/2/77 decided on 27-6-1978 thereby dismissing the objections of the appellant against the award and making the award dated 2-9-1977 for Rs. 20091.77 as rule of the court and passing a decree to the aforesaid extent in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The appellant has a grievance against this judgment and assails the same by way of this appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that an agreement was executed between the parties from 10-6-65 to December 31, 1965 regarding the sale of fertilizer. On expiry, it was not renewed and the transaction continued. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the matter was to be referred to an Arbitrator in case of a dispute between the parties, Such a dispute arose and the matter was taken in for arbitration. The Arbitrator gave the aforesaid award and it came to the court for making it the rule of the court and passing a decree executable as such. 3. The appellant raised objection as to the validity of the agreement and the award given by the Arbitrator. The challenge was based on Art. 299 of the Constitution of India. This contention was repelled by the Senior Sub Judge, Solan. Shri Devinder Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, rightly contended that in case it is held that the execution of the contract between the parties was not in accordance with Art. 299 of the Constitution of India, there was no need to proceed to decide other objections taken against the decision of the trial court. In order to support his submission, reference to a similar case, namely, Civil Suit No. 24 of 1976 (State of Himachal Pradesh v. M/s Mast Ram Dev Rai), was made. In this case, the learned Judge while interpreting Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India, came to the conclusion that the contracts made in exercise of the executive power of the Union or the State, have to be expressly made by the President of India or the Governor of the State, as the case may be. They can be so made by the person authorised in this behalf by the President of India or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, and have to be executed in the manner so directed. They can be so made by the person authorised in this behalf by the President of India or the Governor of the State, as the case may be, and have to be executed in the manner so directed. Referring to the case in hand, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the agreements were not so executed. They were not executed by the Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the Department of Agriculture on behalf of the President of India. They did not bear the signatures of any person on behalf of the President of India except that it contained the signatures of the partner of the firm and the witnesses only. In one case, the same was signed by the District Agriculture Officer, Mahasu, and he too was not shown to have been authorised on behalf of the President of India. It was concluded that the agreements were not executed in accordance with the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. 4. The present case is absolutely similar to the case referred to above, as is apparent from the agreement (Ex.PA), and the case is thus covered by the aforesaid judgment. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex court in AIR 1967 SC 203 (K.P. Chowdhry v. State of Madhya Pradesh) and AIR 1968 SC 1218 : 1968 All LJ 745 (Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh) as well, the result is that there is no valid enforceable agreement between the parties in this case. The matter could not have been referred to the Arbitrator and the proceedings before him as well as the Court below are without jurisdiction and nonest. 5. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the trial court is set aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.