JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Shri Balwinder Kumar Gupta, Contractor, Shimla I (hereafter referred to as the Plaintiff-Non-Objector) and the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereafter referred to as the defendant-objector) entered into an agreement No. 23 of 1985-86 for the work of providing and laying Asphaltic on Kalka-Shimla road Km. 105/175 to 115/0. This was an item rate tender, which was awarded to the plaintiff-non-objector at the rate of 22.71% above the estimate rates put to tender The letter of award ; was given to the plaintiff/non-objector on 6th December, 1985. The time period for completion of the work was stipulated in the agreement as one year and it was to be completed by December 21, 1986. 2. During the operation of the contract agreement, certain disputes arose between the parties and Shri J. R. Kainth, Superintending Engineer, Arbitration Cell, Solan was appointed as Arbitrator by the Engineer-in- Chief, HP PWD, Shimla in pursuance of Clause 25 of the said agreement. 3. Shri J. R. Kainth on his promotion, resigned from arbitratorship and a vacancy fell. In his place Shri R. P. Malhotra, Superintending Engineer, HP PWD was appointed as such. He gave his award on August 3, 1991 which was filed before this Court on 5th September, 1991 for making it a rule of the Court which was registered as Civil Suit No. 88/91. Notices were served on both the parties. The defendant-State assailed the impugned award by filing objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 within the stipulated period. The same has been registered as O. M. P. No. 2 of 1992. 4. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 5,08,600.53 P. from the arbitrator, as per the detail given below : Sr. No (1) Particulars of claim (2) Amt. demanded (3) 1. On account of payment of work done on approach road. Rs. 45,069.26 P. 2. On account of payment of work done for tack coat provided. Rs. 1,07,696.16 P. 3. On account of payment of work done for refund of recovery of 37 Mt. bitumen. Rs. 1,35,749.88 P. 4. On account of payment for preparation of surface. Rs. 72,300 5. On account of payment under Clause 10 (c). Rs. 78,130.23 P. 6. On account of refund of excess recovery of machinery. Rs. 50,135 7. On account of recovery effected from empty drums. Rs. 19,520 Total: Rs. 5,08,600/53 5. bitumen. Rs. 1,35,749.88 P. 4. On account of payment for preparation of surface. Rs. 72,300 5. On account of payment under Clause 10 (c). Rs. 78,130.23 P. 6. On account of refund of excess recovery of machinery. Rs. 50,135 7. On account of recovery effected from empty drums. Rs. 19,520 Total: Rs. 5,08,600/53 5. The main objection raised by the defendant-State against claim Nos. 2 and 4 of the impugned award is that : (i) that the Arbitrator has not only mis-conducted himself but also the proceedings by wrongly allowing Rs. 82,967 85 in respect of claim No. 2 in as much as the analysis of rate for providing and laying asphaltic concrete included the item of tack coat and the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any amount pursuant to the terms of the agreement ; and (ii) that the Arbitrator has also mis-conducted himself and the proceedings by wrongly allowing Rs. 25,927.44 P. in respect of claim No. 4 in as much as the plaintiff had agreed to execute the work strictly as per Ministry of Transport Specifications (as given in the book of specifications for road and bridges works by M. O. T for asphaltic concrete) through negotiation letter dated 8th October, 1985. According to them the work undertaken by him pertaining to the preparation of surface included the preparation, shaping and conditioning to the specified levels, grade and camber of the base on which asphaltic concrete was to be laid as per para 501 read with paras 510 to 542 of the M. O. T. specifications. In other words, the objection raised by the defendant is that the Arbitrator has acted beyond his jurisdiction and thus mis-conducted himself and the proceedings. 6. The defendants vehemently resisted the aforesaid claim on the ground that a preliminary objection had also been raised that this Court cannot re-appraise the evidence by sitting as a Court of appeal On merits it is contended that the impugned award was made by the learned Arbitrator on appraisal of the evidence oral as also documentary, adduced by both the parties. In addition it was itemwise tender as per the specifications given in M. O. T. , yet for the performance of the work undertaken by them, he had to perform extra work referred to in claim item Nos. In addition it was itemwise tender as per the specifications given in M. O. T. , yet for the performance of the work undertaken by them, he had to perform extra work referred to in claim item Nos. 2 and 4 for which he has legally and validly been paid by the Arbitrator pursuant to the terms of the agreement. 7. Both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits in support of their respective claims. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and they have also taken me through the entire record. 9. Examining the objections raised by the defendant-State in this application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, there is no dispute regarding the principle that the award can be set aside on the ground of Arbitrator mis-conducting himself and the proceedings if it is so found from the record. The expression "mis-conduct" has not been defined It is difficult to give exhaustive explanation as to what may amount to mis-conduct on the part of an Arbitrator. 10. It is well settled that when a Court is called upon to decide the objections raised by a party against an arbitration award, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited as expressly indicated in the Arbitration Act, 1940 and it has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over views of Arbitrator by re- examining and re-assessing the materials. In other words, this Court cannot go into the question of correctness of the award. Adjudication by an Arbitrator is a forum chosen by the parties Unless and until the alleged mischief is not shown to be covered by section 30 or 33 of the Arbitration Act, the award cannot be set aside by the Courts. Reference can be made to this view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Harcharan Singh v Union of India, JT 1990 (3) 692. 11. It is in the back-drop of the above-said settled principle, that the objections, in question are to be determined. The question whether the analysis of rate for providing and allowing asphaltic concrete on Kalka Shimla road included item of Tack Coat as per the terms of the agreement -in question, depends upon the interpretation of the terms thereof. 11. It is in the back-drop of the above-said settled principle, that the objections, in question are to be determined. The question whether the analysis of rate for providing and allowing asphaltic concrete on Kalka Shimla road included item of Tack Coat as per the terms of the agreement -in question, depends upon the interpretation of the terms thereof. Also, whether the plaintiff did or did not adduce any evidence to show that the department agreed to pay for tack coat separately has also been considered by the Arbitrator while making the impugned award pertaining to item No. 2. Similarly in respect of claim No. 4 the question whether the claimant had agreed to execute the work strictly as per the M. O. T. specifications through negotiation letter dated 8th October, 1985 and the plaintiff did not execute extra work for preparing, shaping and conditioning to the specified levels, grade and camber on the basis of which the asphaltic concrete was to be laid as per the agreement, is also an interpretation of the terms entered into between the parties. The Arbitrator himself is a Superintending Engineer in HP PWD concerning the work, in question and an experienced person in this behalf. He has, on the basis of the evidence, concluded that plaintiff bad to do additional work and use additional bitumen to the extent of 5 Kg in addition to the specified quantity of 60 Kg. per 10 Sq, Metre as per the terms of the agreement. This finding he had concluded on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both the parties. 12. As pointed out above, the Arbitrator was an experienced Engineer He was fully conversant with the terms of the contract and also M. O. T. specifications vis-a-vis the work awarded to the plaintiff. He has taken into consideration the additional work done by the plaintiff. This, therefore, is not a case where the Arbitrator can be said to have ignored or over-looked a term of the contract or the M O. T, specifications on the contrary, he has acted upon a particular interpretation of certain clauses of the contract read with M. O, T. specifications on which two views are possible. This, therefore, is not a case where the Arbitrator can be said to have ignored or over-looked a term of the contract or the M O. T, specifications on the contrary, he has acted upon a particular interpretation of certain clauses of the contract read with M. O, T. specifications on which two views are possible. This case certainly cannot be brought under the principle that Arbitrator has ex facie exceeded the authority or jurisdiction conferred on him by the contract At worst, what can be said is that he may have committed an error in deciding the issue referred to him but the error is not apparent on the face of the award even if the contract is read as part of it inasmuch as the view taken by him of the relevant terms of the con tract read with M. O. T Specifications cannot be said to be clearly erroneous. In a matter on which the contract is open to two equally plausible interpretations, it is legitimate for the Arbitrator to accept one or the other of the available interpretations and, even if the Court may think that the other view is preferable, the Court will not and should not interfere This view is too well settled to need any reference to any precedent other than Sudershan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1989 SC 890. 13. Applying the above-said settled principles to the above said facts, this Court cannot sit as an appellate Court and re-appraise the evidence for coming to a different finding. Even otherwise if the Arbitrator has come to an erroneous conclusion on facts or law, his decision cannot be set aside by re-appraising the entire evidence adduced by the parties, Thus there appears to be nothing on record to come to the conclusion that I the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself or the proceedings or that the Arbitrator has acted beyond his jurisdiction. Accordingly, the objections are rejected and application is dismissed with no order as to costs. The application stands disposed of in terms of above Order accordingly.