B. BHATTACHARYA,J. ( 1 ) THE West Bengal State Electricity Board and others being dissatisfied with the order dated December 20, 1990 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Second Court, Midnapore, in Judicial Miscellaneous Case No. 2 of 1990, have preferred the instant First Miscellaneous Appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act. ( 2 ) ON an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act, one Sri Jatindra Nath Bakshi, Superintending Engineer, Resources Circle, P. W. D, was appointed as Sole Arbitrator, Neither in the agreement nor in the order appointing such Arbitrator, any direction was given for giving a reasoned Award. After hearing both the parties, the learned Arbitrator passed an Award on 10th March, 1989, thereby directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 2. 35. 051/ -. Being dissatisfied with the aforementioned Award, the present appellant filed a combined application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, which gave rise to the aforesaid miscellaneous case No. 2 of 1990. The ground taken in the said application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act was that there was error apparent on the face of record notwithstanding the fact the Award was a non-speaking Award. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Judge after consideration of all the case laws arrived at a conclusion that the Award being a non-speaking one and in view of the fact that either in the agreement or in the order appointing Arbitrator, there was no direction upon the learned Arbitrator to give reasoned Award, the same does not come within the purview of section 30 of the Arbitration Act and hence, dismissed the application under section 30 of the said Act. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the instant appeal has been preferred. ( 4 ) AFTER consideration of the materials on record, we find that the ground taken by the appellant in his application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act is not available in view of the Supreme Court decision reported in S. Harchan Singh v. Union of India reported in (1990) 4 SCC 647 . In that case the apex court has said that when in the agreement of in the order appointing Arbitrator, there is no direction for giving any reasoned Award, the said unreasoned Award cannot be challenged on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. In that case the apex court has said that when in the agreement of in the order appointing Arbitrator, there is no direction for giving any reasoned Award, the said unreasoned Award cannot be challenged on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. It goes without saying that in the instant case no speaking Award has been given. Only in one sentence the Arbitrator has directed the present appellant to pay the sum as indicated above. ( 5 ) IN view of the fact stated above, we find no merit in the instant appeal and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The appellant is granted one month's time to pay the awarded amount and on making such payment the Bank Guarantee shall stand released. However, if the appellant fail to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time indicated above, the Bank Guarantee can be enforced by the respondent. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. S. B. Sinha,-J. I agree appeal dismissed.