JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—Facts giving rise to this case are that a contract agreement was entered into between the Union of India through Garrison Engineer, 863 EWS C/O 56 APO (hereinafter to be referred as the defendant-objector) and M/s. Rajesh Builders (hereinafter to be called the plaintiff-contractor-claimant). By the said agreement, work was allotted to the plaintiff-contractor-claimant by the defendant-objector under the CA No. CWE/(P)/ Jut-14/89-90: Provn of OT Complex for Section Hospital at Pooh. Subsequently, certain disputes arose between the parties as regards the execution of the said work. Consequently, as the original agreement contract contained an Arbitration Clause, the plaintiff-contractor-claimant raised dispute. Thereafter the matter was referred to the sole Arbitrator Shri A.K. Jain, Superintending Engineer C/O Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Zone, Chandigarh by the said Chief Engineer by his letter No. 82151/ Arb/CHM/47/E8 dated 24.7.1996. 2. The sole arbitrator referred to above thereupon entered into the reference and ultimately announced his award on 30.6.1997. The said award is now before this Court for being made Rule of the Court, subject to the decision of the objections filed by the defendant-objector under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, whereby the award of the arbitrator dated 30.6.1997 has been challenged. The defendant-objector has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the said objections, which is O.M.P. (M) No. 13 of 1998. By this judgment/order, I propose to dispose of both the objections i.e. civil suit No. 57 of 1997 and the said application being O.M.P. (M) No. 13 of 1998. 3. Taking up the application for condoning the delay first, according to the record, the objections are time-barred by 55 days. The sufficient cause as indicated in para-3 of the said application for condoning the said delay is as follows:— "That the objections were delayed because the matter requires sanction and vetting at various levels which consumed time. In any case the Honble Supreme Court has ruled that the administrative delays being unintentional and administrative/bona fide, it may be condoned and the objections be allowed to be placed on record." 4. It is manifest that the only ground taken in the said para by way of sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the objections is that the same were delayed because the matter required sanction and vetting at various levels which consumed time. It is manifest that the only ground taken in the said para by way of sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the objections is that the same were delayed because the matter required sanction and vetting at various levels which consumed time. Shelter has been sought on the basis of Supreme Court ruling that the delay being unintentional and administrative/bona fide, therefore, the delay in the present case should be condoned. The plaintiff-contractor-claimant has filed reply to the said application opposing the prayer contained therein. 5. I have heard Shri Sureshwar Thakur, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union of India and Shri J.S. Bhogal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-contractor-claimant. Shri Sureshwar Thakur has placed reliance on the case reported as Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala v. K.V. Ayisumma, A.I.R. 1996 SC 2750. It has been laid down therein that while considering the question of condoning delay attributable in a given case to the State Government, insistence, upon explaining every days delay by Court would be improper inasmuch as transaction of business of Government is being done leisurely by officers who had no personal interest at different levels. It was held in these circumstances that such adoption of strict standard of proof leads to grave miscarriage of public justice. 6. Since the above said ruling consists of three paragraphs only. I [have gone through the same with the assistance of the learned counsel I for the parties. Apart from the observations referred to above, it has also been held therein that it is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act envisages explanation of the delay to the satisfaction of the Court (emphasis supplied) and in matters of Limitation Act made no distinction between the State and the citizen. This indicates that the settled law down all this period of time is that the party which seeks the indulgence of the Court for condoning the delay in a Us, is not absolved from this statutory duty to explain the delay to the satisfaction of the Court and in this behalf, the citizen and the State are at par. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court in the abovementioned ruling to the facts of the present case, it will be seen that the ground contained in the application for condoning the delay is not only general, but quite vague. Applying the test laid down by the Apex Court in the abovementioned ruling to the facts of the present case, it will be seen that the ground contained in the application for condoning the delay is not only general, but quite vague. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the defendant-objector has not made out a case on merits for condoning the delay. 7. However, in order to do substantial justice, I have gone through the objections also. Shri Sureshwar Thakur has challenged the award of interest for the pre-reference period by the arbitrator in the impugned award on the ground that the same is legally not sustainable and also that the Arbitration Clause in the contract agreement in the present case, does not provide for the same. In order to appreciate his contention, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant portion of the impugned award. The same is incorporated in para 24 thereof under the Head of Claim No. 10 relating to interest on the withheld amounts @ 18% per annum by the plaintiff-cofitractor-claimant. The arbitrator has awarded 15% per annum simple interest on principal sum of award except that award on Claim No. 9 under three heads, namely, (a) from the date of notice of claim to the date of arbitrator entering upon the reference; (b) Pendente lite interest from the date of entering upon reference by him to the date of award and (c) future interest from the date of award to the date of payment or to the date of decree, whichever is earlier, with an allowance of a period of sixty days of grace. 8. Shri J.S. Bhogal has cited a recent ruling of the Apex Court reported as State of Orissa v. B.N. Agarwalla, (1997) 2 SCC 469. It has been clearly laid down therein that under Sections 14 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the arbitrator has jurisdiction to award interest after the Interest Act, 1978 had become applicable, even for the pre-reference period i.e. for the period commencing from the date of dispute till the date the arbitrator enters upon reference. 9. In view of this categorical ruling of the Apex Court, there is no force in the argument of Shri Sureshwar Thakur and the same is hereby repelled. 9. In view of this categorical ruling of the Apex Court, there is no force in the argument of Shri Sureshwar Thakur and the same is hereby repelled. He has then challenged the award as regards the Claims No. 4, 6 and 9 raised by the plaintiff-contractor-claimant before the arbitrator. I have gone through the findings in the impugned award in respect of these three claims. The same have been considered and decided on merits after taking into consideration the material on record as well as the claim of the plaintiff-contractor-claimant and the objection raised to the same on behalf of Union of India. It is by now well-settled law that the Court cannot go into the merits of the award rendered by an Arbitrator and the same can only be examined from two angles i.e. whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself and/or the proceedings before him in a given dispute. These circumstances do not exist in the present case whatsoever. No other point has been urged. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit either in the application for condoning the delay or even the objections of the defendant-objector-Union of India. Both of them are consequently dismissed. Resultantly the award of the arbitrator is made a Rule of the Court. Decree sheet beprepared accordingly. Application dismissed.