1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002(1945 A.D.)(hereinafter called the Act) against the order dated 3.9.1994, passed by learned District .Judge, Jammu, making the award, submitted by the Arbitrator, a rule of the Court and directed to draw decree in terms of the said award. The application of the appellants filed under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Act for setting aside the award having been dismissed, hence this appeal under Section 39 of the Act. 2. The respondent entered into a contract with the appellants being a Contractor on 11 -6-1990 in respect of purchase of Moong green 100% to be supplied within 30 days from the date of placing of the order in accordance with the sample approved by the Purchase Committee. /The Dal Moong was to be supplied to ICDS, Project Officer, Tanmarg at the specified rate in terms of the agreement. A dispute, however, arose interse parties with regard to the supply of the Dal Moong in terms of the agreement, which came to be referred to the Arbitrator, K.K. Mahajan, Advocate, vide order dated 9-7-1993. The award of the Arbitrator dated 18-12-1993 was filed in the Court below on 27-12-1993. A notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties to file objections, if any, within statutory period. On the receipt of the notice, the present appellants assailed the award on the ground that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself on account of nondelivery of the goods strictly as per the terms of the contract and denied the liability for payment. Whereas the respondent claimed to be awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum, which has been denied without any justification by the Arbitrator. On the texure of the pleadings, the following issues are framed by the Court below on 5-3-1994 1. Whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings? OPR 2. Whether the award is other wise illegal and liable to be set aside? OPR 3. Relief. 3. In support of the contention raised by the appellants before the Trial Court, and affidavit by M.L. Peshin, Deputy Director, ICDS, Social Welfare, Jammu, by way of the evidence was filed and respondent also filed an affidavit by one of its partner, Kavi Chander, in regard to the issues enumerated above. OPR 3. Relief. 3. In support of the contention raised by the appellants before the Trial Court, and affidavit by M.L. Peshin, Deputy Director, ICDS, Social Welfare, Jammu, by way of the evidence was filed and respondent also filed an affidavit by one of its partner, Kavi Chander, in regard to the issues enumerated above. The District Judge, on considering the objections filed against the award and evidence adduced, found that the appellants failed to establish the misconduct of the Arbitrator himself for the proceedings and held Issue No. 1 against the appellants and in favour of the respondent. Regarding Issue No.2 also, the District Judge found that the Arbitrator has given sufficient and cogent reasons for denying the interest and, thus, has not committed any misconduct of law to render the award invalid, and thus, ordered the award to make a rule of the Court and draw the decree in terms of the order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had assailed the order impugned in the appeal mainly on the grounds that the respondent having failed to supply the goods to ICDS, Tanmarg in accordance with the terms of the agreement, within the specified period, disentitled him to any payment and the reasoning given by the Arbitrator and accepted by the Court are legally erroneous. It was further submitted that the District Judge has based his judgment on the decision of the Apex-Court, referred therein without understanding its true import and proper interpretation. 5. As regards first contention of the appellants that the goods were not delivered to the consignee in terms of the agreement, it is pertinent to point out that the Arbitrator, after going through the facts, placed before him and the evidence rendered, reached the conclusion that the goods stand delivered, which, in view of the prevailing situation arisen out of the strike of the Government employees, the delivery of the goods was justified to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar, however, acted what was expected of a public servant in good faith in such a situation. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator in granting the claim of the petitioner has misconducted himself for the proceedings. 6. The Tehsildar, however, acted what was expected of a public servant in good faith in such a situation. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator in granting the claim of the petitioner has misconducted himself for the proceedings. 6. Where the umpire as the sole Arbitrator has awarded a sum to the Contractor on account of certain claims made by the Contractor, after considering the arguments of the Social Welfare Department for disallowing it, but without expressly adverting to the question of limitation, the award was not vitiated on account of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the award. The umpire as sole Arbitrator was not bound to give a reasoned award and in passing the award, if he makes a mistake of law or of fact, that is no ground for challenging the validity of the award. It is only when an erroneous proposition of law is stated in the award and which is the basis of the award, can the award be set aside or remitted on the ground of error of law apparent on the face of the record, AIR 1975 SC 230 may be noticed. 7. Further, reasonableness of the reasons and justification given by the Arbitrator in making its award cannot be challenged. The Arbitrator is the sole Judge of the quality and quantity of evidence and it will not be for the Court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge of the evidence before the Arbitrator. lt may be possible that on the same evidence, the Court might have arrived at some conclusion from that of one arrived at by the Arbitrator, but that by itself is no ground for setting aside the award of an arbitrator, as is the ratio of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi V. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and another, AIR 1987 SC 2316. A Court while considering an appeal under Section 30 of the Act is not sitting in appeal over the award itself. The Arbitrator, who is a Judge of the choice of the parties, should be given complete freedom to decide the issue rightly or wrongly. The entire object of the Arbitration Act would be frustrated, if the Court sits in appeal over the award and enters into question of facts or of law. The Arbitrator, who is a Judge of the choice of the parties, should be given complete freedom to decide the issue rightly or wrongly. The entire object of the Arbitration Act would be frustrated, if the Court sits in appeal over the award and enters into question of facts or of law. In this view of the matter, no fault is found with the judgment propounded by the learned District Judge warranting interference in the appeal. 8. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.