P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners- respondents 1 to 3 in OP No. 222 of 1992, against the order dated 28-8-1998 made in the said OP, on the file of IV senior civil judge, city civil Court, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as follows : the 1st respondent in the CRP who is the petitioner in OP No. 222 of 1992 filed an application under Sections 3, 5, 11 and 12 read with Sections 8 and 9 of the Arbitration act, 1940 to remove the named arbitrators and appoint any retired Justice of the High court of A. P. as a sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arises between the parties relating to the contract works. It is stated that the 1st respondent is a Class I Contractor and had entered into LCP Agreement No. 27/se/ nzd/81-82, dated 12-3-1982 with the government of Andhra Pradesh for execution of contract works and during the execution of the said works certain disputes arose between the parties and as per the arbitration clause of the agreement, disputes and differences have to be referred to adjudication to a panel of arbitrators consisting of (1) Chief engineer, Srisailam Project, (2) Deputy secretary to Government, Finance department and (3) Director of Accounts, pochampad Project i. e. , Sriramsagar Project, in cases where the claim amount is Rs. 1 lakh and above and since the claim amount is more than Rs. l lakh, the 1st respondent filed the claim dated 13-3-1990 before the panel of arbitrators to adjudicate the disputes and to pass an award within the period of four months as contemplated by the arbitration Act, 1940. The 1st respondent had received a letter dated 4-4-1990 which was signed on 10-4-1990 insisting upon the conditions stipulated in the agreement for resorting to arbitration and enquired above the decision of the Superintending engineer and also called for the further correspondence. The 1st respondent had received a letter dated 4-4-1990 which was signed on 10-4-1990 insisting upon the conditions stipulated in the agreement for resorting to arbitration and enquired above the decision of the Superintending engineer and also called for the further correspondence. But however, except the said communication none of the other arbitrators had given any reply informing about their entering upon the reference and the 1st respondent received another letter dated 3-8-1990 signed by the Chief Engineer, srisailam Project to Revision Petitioners 2 and 3 calling upon them to file their rebuttal statement along with a copy of the agreement and pursuant to the above letter, the revision petitioners 2 and 3 had sent their rebuttal statement and thereafter the 1st respondent received a notice dated 10-4-1990, again signed by the Chief Engineer (Projects), srisailam Project, informing that the date of first hearing was fixed as 9-5-1991 and requesting the parties to attend the hearing with all relevant records and books and the parties had appeared before the panel of arbitrators. It was also stated that there was a change in the first and the second members of the panel of arbitrators and under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the authority of the arbitrator shall not be revoked except with the leave of the competent Court and despite the same the 1st respondent participated in the proceedings before the changed panel of named arbitrators with the fond hope of getting his matter settled. The new panel of arbitrators had conducted the proceedings and the matter was adjourned to 10-7-1991 and also to 17-7-1991 and ultimately they failed to adjudicate the matter and pass the award within the time stipulated. Subsequent thereto, the date of hearing was fixed as 18-6-1992, but the hearing could not take place in view of the absence of the other two arbitrators and in the light of the said facts, the 1 st respondent issued a notice dated 17-6-1992 bringing all the facts and legal position to the knowledge of the arbitrators and also marking a copy of the revision petitioners 2 and 3. While so, one of the arbitrators Sri R Vijayedevan, Joint Secretary to Government, who participated and heard the matter partly had retired from the service and one D. Ramesh Kumar succeeded in his place. While so, one of the arbitrators Sri R Vijayedevan, Joint Secretary to Government, who participated and heard the matter partly had retired from the service and one D. Ramesh Kumar succeeded in his place. Under Clause III, Schedule I of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the arbitrator shall make the award within the period of four months from the date of entering upon the reference or from the date on which the parties to agreement called upon to Act and in the present case though the arbitrators can be deemed to have entered upon the reference on 4-4-1990 and for the sake of their convenience they reckoned the date of entering upon the reference as 9-7-1991 and also extended time upto 30-11-1991 and failed to proceed with the matter or pass an award and thereby they became functus- officio. The 1st respondent addressed a written notice concurring appointment in supplying the vacancy and though the said notice dated 19-6-1992 was served on them they have neither expressed their concurrence for appointment nor supplied the vacancy and the 1st respondent had received a telegraphic confirmation letter dated 22-6-1992 informing that the revision petitioners 1 and 2 are seeking enlargement of time and the next date is fixed as 7-7-1992. On 24-6-1992, the 2nd revision petitioner informed that the notice under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is invalid and sought for consent of the 1st respondent for extension of time or otherwise they will move the Court to get the extension. The revision petitioners - respondents 1 to 3 in the Court below, filed a detailed counter admitting that the 1st respondents is a Class I contractor and entered into an agreement dated 12-3-1982 and the site was handed over to the 1st respondent on 12-3-1982. As per the time stipulated in the agreement, the entire work should have been completed within nine months, but the 1st respondent did not complete the work and extension of time also was granted upto 15-1-1989, they have issued a final notice to resume the work and complete the balance work by 15-1-1989, for which the 1st respondent neither replied to the said final notice nor resumed the work and hence the contractor was determined by the 3rd revision petitioner. . under clause 16-2-0 of the agreement and hence the 1st respondent approached the panel of arbitrators by a claim statement. . under clause 16-2-0 of the agreement and hence the 1st respondent approached the panel of arbitrators by a claim statement. It was further stated that they received a letter dated 3-8-1990 from the Chief Engineer (Projects), Hyderabad directing the revision petitioners 2 and 3 to file the rebuttal statement within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter and in response to the letter the 2nd revision petitioner had addressed a letter dated 18-8-1990 informing the Chief Engineer (Projects), Hyderabad as the 1st respondent had not sent the claim statement to the 2nd revision petitioner as submitted to the arbitrators and further the chief Engineer (Projects), Hyderabad had addressed a letter dated 3-9-1990 and also another letter dated 26-12-1990 to the 1st respondent directing him to send a copy of the claim statement to the 2nd revision petitioner immediately and also directed the revision petitioners 2 and 3 to file rebuttal statement within 15 days on receipt of the claim statement and finally the 1st respondent had sent a copy of the claim statement on 30-12-1990 and thereafter the rebuttal statement was submitted on 22-1-1991 and the reply to rejoinder was filed on 12-7-1991 and the 1st respondent filed second rejoinder on 18-8-1991 and reply to the rejoinder was filed on 9-9-1991. The written submissions also were submitted on 11-10-1991 to the panel of arbitrators to complete the material sought by the 1st respondent. The Chief Engineer (Projects), hyderabad sent his letter dated 10-4-1991 addressed to the 1st respondent and the revision petitioners 2 and 3 informing that the first hearing of the arbitration proceedings by the arbitrators will be held on 9-5-1991 at 11 a. m. , in the chambers of the Chief engineer (Projects), Hyderabad and a number of sittings took place in the presence of the panel of arbitrators and consent also was given by the revision petitioners upto 30-11-1991 and for extension of arbitration period to settle the disputes. The extension of time for passing the award was given from time to time upto 31-7-1992 and the arbitration proceedings almost came to a concluding stage and stage of the award and the panel of arbitrators have fixed the hearing on 18-6-1992 and the revision petitioners 2 and 3 furnished their consent also upto 31-7-1992 as required by the panel of arbitrators and attended the hearing on 18-6-1992 before the- panel of arbitrators. But for reasons best known, the 1st respondent had not attended the hearing on 18-6-1992 and had not furnished his consent for extention of time upto 31-7-1992. The 1st respondent gave a legal notice through his advocate requesting the panel of arbitrators not to proceed further in the matter stating that respondents 4 and 6 in OP no. 222 of 1992 are not the members of the original panel of named arbitrators as per the agreement and refused to give his consent beyond 30-11-1991. It was also stated that the 4th respondent in OP No. 222 of 1992 i. e. , the Chief Engineer, Srisailam Project, as given in the agreement and the Chief engineer (Projects), Srisailam Project are one and the same and the designation of the 5th respondent in OP No. 222 of 1992 was changed from Deputy Secretary to government, Finance Department to Joint secretary, Finance Department due to administrative reasons, but the post is the same. The 1st respondent accepted the panel of arbitrators and attended before them for hearing and filed a claim statement and rejoinder and the Counsel for the 1st respondent also was present before the panel of arbitrators and if there was any objection of the 1st respondent relating to the panel of arbitrators he should have raised the objection in the beginning itself, but not after attending several sittings and at the time of passing of the award. It was also stated that the 1st respondent never objected to the panel of arbitrators to proceed with the proceedings at any point of time and the panel of arbitrators had never neglected or refused to pass the award, but only due to the non-co-operation of the 1st respondent, the award could not be made. It was also stated that if there were any objections, the 1st respondent should have raised the objections in the beginning itself, but not after attending the several sittings and the 1st respondent instead of giving consent for extension of time had unnecessarily filed this application and he is not entitled for appointment of sole arbitrator inasmuch as there is no change in the panel of arbitrators and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application at all. The Court below by the order dated 28-8-1998 had allowed the application removing the named arbitrators and by appointing Sri M Satyanaroyana Murthy, chief Engineer (Randb) (Retired), government of A. P. Chartered Engineer as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences which have arisen between the parties and the arbitrator was directed to enter upon the reference expeditiously and to file his award within a period of four months from the date of entering upon the reference and that the arbitrator shall be entitled to the remuneration also as per the arbitration Act. Aggrieved by the said order made in OP No. 222 of 1992 by the iv Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad the respondents 1 to 3 in the said OP filed the present revision raising several grounds. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Arbitration mainly contended that the order of the Court below allowing the application by removing the named arbitrators and appointing a Chief Engineer, r and B, is totally contrary to the principles laid down in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Mastan Rao, AIR 1994 SC 490 at 491, government of A. P. v. N. V. Choudary, 1993 (3) ALT 391 , State of A. P. v. G. Ananthaiah, 1996 (4) ALT 1067 . The learned Counsel also had contended that the mere delay in making the award will not amount to misconduct or neglect and hence it cannot be said that the order of the Court below is justified. ( 4 ) SRI Prabhakar, the learned Counsel representing the 1st respondent in the crp i. e. , the petitioner in OP No. 222 of 1992 had made elaborate submissions. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on hari Shankarlal v. Shambhunath Prasad and others, AIR 1962 SC 78 , and had contended that if the named arbitrators failed to enter upon the reference within the time stipulated or failed to pass an award within the time stipulated, they become functus- officio unless there is valid extension of time within the meaning of Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The learned counsel also had drawn my attention to the order passed in OP No. 37 of 1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid, which was filed under Section 28 of the Arbitration act, 1940 to extend the arbitration period from 1-12-1991 to 31-8-1992 and for issuing further directions and the said petition was dismissed as infructuous on 27-7-1995. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on G. V. Malla Reddy v. Hyderabad Union, 1986 ALR 242, RRamana Reddy v. The superintending Engineer, 1987 (2) APLJ 447 , Government of A. P. v. M. Venkat Reddy, 1994 (1) APLJ 143 , and also the judgments in CRP No. 269 of 1992 and CRP No. 687 of 1996. The learned Counsel had vehemently contended that in view of the proceedings and the conduct of the panel of arbitrators and the change of arbitrators, the inordinate delay in completing the proceedings and making the award will definitely fall under neglect and also it may fall under misconduct and hence the court below after appreciating all the facts and circumstances having recorded the detailed reasons at paragraphs 13 to 22, ultimately had arrived at the conclusion that the OP has to be allowed and hence such an order does not warrant any interference. ( 5 ) SECTION 12 (2) of the Arbitration act, 1940 reads as follows :"where the authority of an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire is revoked by leave of the Court, or where the Court removes an umpire who has entered on the reference or a sole arbitrator or all the arbitrators, the Court may, on the application of any party to the arbitration agreement, either (a) appoint a person to act as sole arbitrator in the place of the person or persons displaced; or (b) order that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect with respect to the difference referred". The Court below after perusing the record mainly had arrived at the conclusion that the OP has to be allowed since the panel of arbitrators had not concluded the matter in time and there is inordinate delay in rendering the award and there is in-action on their part, which may amount to refusal and hence the 1st, respondent had rightly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court by removing such afbitrators. It is also pertinent to note that the Apex Court s decision cited (1) supra was brought to the notice of the Court below which was discussed at paragraph 15 of the order. The court below, most probably felt that the said decision is distinguishable. In the counter filed by the revision petitioners, the facts and circumstances had been clearly explained. Apart from it, the OP No. 37 of 1992 referred to above was dismissed as infructuous. It is also relevant to note that as against the named panel of arbitrators there are no allegations made and the only grievance of the 1 st respondent is that there is inordinate delay in making the award. No doubt there are allegations and counter allegations relating to the co-operation or non-co-operation of the parties which had been referred to in detail by the parties only with a view to justify their respective stands-the revision petitioners contending that the delay was on account of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent on the contrary contending that inspite of his best co-operation there was delay on the part of the panel of arbitrators only. Be that as it may, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India and hence I am bound by the judgment of the Apex Court in this regard. Apart from the judgment of the Apex Court cited (1) above, there is another judgment of a Full Bench of this court cited (2) supra, in this regard. In the decision (1) supra, the Apex Court was pleased to observe:"we have considered the entire matter closely and have gone through some of the documents with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties and in our opinion it is a fit case in which the arbitration matter should be entrusted to the incumbents of three posts mentioned in the Agreement, and in that view it is not necessary to decide the question debated by the parties as to whether the arbitrators had neglected to conclude the arbitration proceeding justifying the appointment of an arbitrator or arbitrators by the Court. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Courts below and direct the trial Court to refer the dispute for decision of the present Chief engineer, Srisailam Project, Deputy secretary to Government, Finance department and Director of Accounts, sriramsagar Project with a direction to them as well as to the parties to co- operate in concluding the proceeding expeditiously. As a result of this judgment the Award made by the sole arbitrator being dependent on the impugned judgments which are being set aside, automatically stands set aside and accordingly the same will now be ignored. "in the light of the binding decision of the apex Court I am of the opinion that the order of the Court below removing the panel of arbitrators on the ground of delay in the disposal of the matter and appointing a sole arbitrator in their place is not sustainable in law and hence the impugned order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the impugned order of the Court below is set aside wjth a direction that the named panel of arbitrators shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law and shall decide the matter at the earliest point of time without giving any room for further attack on their conduct. I hope that this observation of this Court will be taken into consideration by the named panel of arbitrators who are excepted to decide the matter at the earliest point of time as per law after following the due procedure contemplated by the provisions of the Arbitration act, 1940. The civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.