ASIT KUMAR BISI, J. ( 1 ) THE Court: The instant application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by the petitioner M/s. A. K. Ghosh and Co. for setting aside the award made by the learned Arbitrator Sri Anil Kumar Sen, former Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court in the matter of arbitration between M/s. A. K. Ghosh and Co. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner in brief is that he was awarded the work for construction of Rural Family Planning Centre at Barakar in the District of Burdwan. On receipt of the work order the petitioner made endeavour to complete the said work within the stipulated period but due to various breaches and defaults on the part of the department execution of the said work was delayed. The petitioner was able to complete the said word on 14. 9. 79. Various extra works at the instruction of the department had been executed by the petitioner for which the petitioner is entitled to payment. Due to delay in the matter of execution of the work for the reasons attributable to the department, the petitioner was subjected to financial loss. The department prepared a final bill after lapse of considerable period but the said final bill prepared by the department did not reflect all the dues payable to the petitioner. The petitioner desired to receive the admitted dues under the said bill on endorsing objection thereto. But the Executive Engineer and the Accounts department were reluctant to release the payment of the said admitted dues unless no claim certificate was issued. Having been in acute financial straits the petitioner had to receive the said admitted amount under the aforesaid bill surrendering to the dictates of the Executive Engineer and the accounts department. Despite repeated demands the department failed and neglected to make payment of the petitioner's legitimate dues. Thereafter on 29. 12. 79 the petitioner wrote a letter to the executive Engineer, Burdwan Division, Construction Board Directorate, Burdwan enclosing a list of claims and requested for payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of that letter in default of which interest @ 16% per annum was claimed. Thereafter on 29. 12. 79 the petitioner wrote a letter to the executive Engineer, Burdwan Division, Construction Board Directorate, Burdwan enclosing a list of claims and requested for payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of that letter in default of which interest @ 16% per annum was claimed. It was further stated in the said letter that if the payment was not received within the said period it would be construed that the dispute had arisen and in that case the petitioner would refer the disputes to arbitration as per clause 25 of the agreement. Since no action was taken in terms of the said letter dated 29. 12. 79, the petitioner by its letter dated 2. 4. 80 equested the Chief Engineer, Construction Board Directorate, Government of West Bengal to refer the claims and/or disputes to arbitration within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. Ultimately the Chief Engineer, Construction Board Directorate, Government of West Bengal by his Memo No. 997/5/8b (2)/arb dated 9. 4. 97 appointed Sri S. K. Basu, Retired Chief Engineer, P. W. (CB) Directorate as Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the petitioner and the State of West Bengal. As the said appointment of Sri S. K. Basu was not proper and legal the petitioner made an application under sections 5, 11 and 12 of Arbitration Act, 1940 for removal of the said Sri S. K. Das as well as for appointment of an Arbitrator by this Court. The said application was registered as A. P. No. 152 of 1997. On 30th October, 1998, Ronojit Kumar Mitra (J), as His Lordship then, passed an order directing the Chief Engineer, Construction Board Directorate, State of West Bengal to appoint an Arbitrator other than the said Sri S. K. Basu in accordance with the agreement. Pursuant to the said order dated 30th October, 1998 the Chief Engineer by his Memo dated 10. 11. 1998 appointed Mr. Anil Kumar Sen, former Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court to arbitrate into the matters relating to the claims of the petitioner arising out of tender/contract No. 62/se (W)CBD/78-79/49/bur. of 1978-79. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the said Memo dated 10th November, 1998 the learned Arbitrator by his letter dated 11th November, 1998 called upon the parties to appear before him on 30th November, 1998 at his chamber. The petitioner through his advocate Md. of 1978-79. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the said Memo dated 10th November, 1998 the learned Arbitrator by his letter dated 11th November, 1998 called upon the parties to appear before him on 30th November, 1998 at his chamber. The petitioner through his advocate Md. Yusuf Ali appeared before the learned Arbitrator on 30th November, 1998. In the said sitting the learned Arbitrator directed the parties to file their pleadings and documents in connection with the arbitration proceedings and fixed his remuneration at 200 G. Ms as well as the remuneration of stenographer and clerk to be shared equally by the parties. The learned Arbitrator held first sitting on 12th March, 1999 and the petitioner could not participate in the said sitting since the petitioner was not in a position to share the high scale of fees of the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator held the sitting in absence of the petitioner and directed the respondent to satisfy him with accounts with regard to the disputed work undertaken by the claimant which had been fully settled as well as to file a xerox copy of the final bill with the acknowledgment receipt for payment thereon. It was further directed by the learned Arbitrator that if the claimant chose not to appear on the next date of hearing fixed, the learned Arbitrator would proceed ex parte with the arbitration proceeding against the claimant and make and publish his award accordingly. The hearing was adjourned till 12th April, 1999. On receiving the minutes of the meeting dated 12th March, 1999 the petitioners sent a letter written by the advocate Miss. Rekha Bose on 1. 4. 99 to the learned Arbitrator ventilating the grievance against the learned Arbitrator in proceeding with the arbitration proceeding without considering the real financial difficulty of the petitioner. It has been further alleged by the petitioner that without appreciating the practical and factual difficulty of the petitioner's inability to share the abnormal and unreasonable fees of the Arbitrator, the learned Arbitrator proceeded with the arbitration proceeding ex-parte in absence of the petitioner and misconducted the proceeding and proved his bias by inviting respondent No. 1 to lodge its counter-claims, if any, though by letter of reference he was asked to adjudicate upon the claims of the petitioner only. ( 4 ) UNDER the above circumstances the petitioner has challenged the particular award passed by the learned Arbitrator and prayed for setting aside the same. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 the State of West Bengal represented by the Chief Engineer, P. W. (Construction Board) Directorate, Government of West Bengal, has filed the affidavit-in-opposition to the application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act denying and disputing all the material allegations contained in the application. It has been averred inter alia by respondent No. 1 that the delay caused for completion of the work was solely due to laches for performance of the petitioner and there was no extra work done by the petitioner for which he could make any claim at all and the learned Arbitrator in his award correctly refused to accept the claim of any extra work. The work was completed on 15. 9. 79. The petitioner accepted the measurements recorded and received the final bill nothing specifically on the relevant page of the final bill that he received the payment in full and final settlement of all claims and demands relating to the work. The petitioner neither endorsed any objection on the bill prior to receiving the final payment nor there was any reason and/or evidence that any coercion was made by the Department. It has been further averred by respondent No. 1 that in the letter of appointment it was mentioned that the Arbitrator would fix up the remuneration. The petitioner was legally bound to act as per directions of the learned Arbitrator. It would be seen from the minutes of the learned Arbitrator that the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner uttered nothing regarding inability of his client to pay his share of fees payable to the learned Arbitrator. The petitioner raised allegations regarding the amount of remuneration of the learned Arbitrator in his application knowing fully well that the learned Arbitrator was the retired Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court and what should be his remuneration as Arbitrator. In spite of that only with a view to avoid the arbitration proceeding before the learned Arbitrator the petitioner raised the lame excuses regarding the amount of remuneration of the learned Arbitrator. In spite of that only with a view to avoid the arbitration proceeding before the learned Arbitrator the petitioner raised the lame excuses regarding the amount of remuneration of the learned Arbitrator. In spite of repeated notices the claimant did not attend the arbitration sittings and the learned Arbitrator had no other option but to proceed with the matter as he had done. The petitioner has made so many allegations against the learned Arbitrator that are afterthought and made only for the purpose of this application. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has filed affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 1 denying and disputing the allegations contained in the affidavit-in-opposition. ( 7 ) BY an order dated 30. 10. 98 passed in A. P. No. 152 of 1997 copy of which is marked as annexure 'f' to the application Ronojit Kumar Mitra, J. (as His Lordship then was) directed the Chief Engineer, Construction Board Directorate, State of West Bengal, to appoint an Arbitrator other than Sri S. K. Basu who was appointed as Arbitrator earlier in accordance with the arbitration contract between the parties. ( 8 ) PURSUANT to the above direction the Chief Engineer concerned appointed Mr. Anil Kumar Sen former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court as Arbitrator to artbitrate into the matters relating to the claims of the agency M/s. A. K. Ghosh and Company presently the petitioner. Copy of the order of the said appointment is marked as annexure 'g' to the application. ( 9 ) BY his Memo dated 11. 11. 98 copy of which is marked as annexure 'h' to the application the learned Arbitrator called upon the parties to appear before him on 30. 11. 98 at 4. 45 P. M. . at his chamber in the given address. It appears from the copy of the minutes of the preliminary sitting of the arbitration which is marked as annexure 'i' to the application that Mr. Md. Yusuf Ali appeared as advocate for the claimant before the learned Arbitrator on that date. Mr. Shyamal Dey as representative of the claimant also appeared along with Mr. Ali before the learned Arbitrator. It further appears that on request of Mr. Ali appearing on behalf of the claimant the learned Arbitrator directed the claimant to file their statement of claim by 11th January, 1999 and on prayer of Mr. Mr. Shyamal Dey as representative of the claimant also appeared along with Mr. Ali before the learned Arbitrator. It further appears that on request of Mr. Ali appearing on behalf of the claimant the learned Arbitrator directed the claimant to file their statement of claim by 11th January, 1999 and on prayer of Mr. Chatterjee the learned advocate appearing for the State respondent the respondents were given time till 22nd of February, 1999 to file counter-statement along with the brief of documents and the claimant had been directed to file rejoinder, if any, by 3rd March, 1999. The learned Arbitrator fixed his own remuneration at 200 G. Ms. in presence of the learned advocates for the parties at the time when the preliminary sitting of the arbitration was held. Subsequently an advocate's letter dated 9. 12. 98 copy of which is marked as annexure 'j' to the application had been sent to the learned Arbitrator seeking clarification as to the quantum of remuneration fixed by the Arbitrator whereupon by the letter dated 14. 12. 98 copy of which is marked as annexure 'k' to the application the learned Arbitrator fully clarified the matter relating to his fees and informed the advocate concerned that it was made clear to the claimant's Advocate-on-Record that the fee as fixed by him was 200 G. Ms. per sitting to be shared equally between the parties. It is significant to note in this context that Miss Rekha Bose the advocate who sent the letter dated 9. 12. 98 to the learned Arbitrator was not the Advocate-on-Record of the claimant nor she was present at the time of the preliminary sitting of the arbitration held on 30. 11. 98. There is nothing in the minutes of the preliminary sitting of the arbitration to indicate that Mr. Ali who was the advocate for the claimant and attended the said sitting ever made any submission or raised any objection as to the amount of fees fixed by the learned Arbitrator. There is nothing credible on record to show in any manner whatsoever that Mr. Ali the learned advocate for the claimant who attended the said preliminary sitting ever stated anything with regard to the quantum of fees fixed by the learned Arbitrator. There is nothing credible on record to show in any manner whatsoever that Mr. Ali the learned advocate for the claimant who attended the said preliminary sitting ever stated anything with regard to the quantum of fees fixed by the learned Arbitrator. That apart, it is to be borne in mind that Sri Anil Kumar Sen who was appointed the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties is former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court and he was fully within his authority to fix his own fees. Considering the status of the learned Arbitrator it can well be held that the amount of fees fixed by him was quite reasonable. There can hardly be any dispute over this aspect of the matter. ( 10 ) FROM the materials on record it appears that the first sitting of the arbitration was held on 12th March, 1999 at 5 P. M. on which date the respondents were present but non appeared for the claimant. Copy of the minutes of the fist sitting of the arbitration is marked as annexure 'm' to the application where the Arbitrator made the following observations:- the Arbitrator recalls to have received a letter from Miss Rekha Bose, advocate dated December 9, 1998 to which the Arbitrator had given a reply clarifying the Arbitrator's position. Unfortunately, even thereafter the Arbitrator has been served with a further letter by Miss Rekha Bose intimating that the claimants will not be in a position to participate in the arbitration proceeding unless the Arbitrator agrees to accept fees suggested by the claimants. The Arbitrator considers the stand so taken to be wholly unreasonable. The Arbitrator being authorised to fix his own remuneration had done so in the presence of the parties as per records of the minutes dated November 30, 1998. The Arbitrator considers the remuneration so fixed to be neither unusual nor unreasonable and that was duly impressed upon the learned advocate on record for the claimants who was appearing on November 30, 1998. In spite thereof and in spite of the Arbitrator's assurance that given the necessary co-operation he would conclude the adjudication within a short time on limited sittings, the claimants are not cooperating and have not complied with the directions of the Arbitrator earlier recorded. In spite thereof and in spite of the Arbitrator's assurance that given the necessary co-operation he would conclude the adjudication within a short time on limited sittings, the claimants are not cooperating and have not complied with the directions of the Arbitrator earlier recorded. They have not come up with any statement of claim and accordingly it appears to the Arbitrator that the claimants have no claim to put forward against the respondents in this reference. ? ( 11 ) SINCE, however, reference has been made the Arbitrator wants to be satisfied accounts with regard to the disputed work undertaken by the claimants had been fully settled. The Arbitrator therefore directs the respondents to submit an account statement at the next sitting in this regard and also file a xerox copy of the final bill with the acknowledgment receipt for payment thereon. The Arbitrator should further be satisfied preferably with reference to the records that the security deposits if any had either been refunded or lawfully adjusted. ( 12 ) THE claimants are being hereby informed that if the claimants choose not to appear on the next date of hearing fixed, the Arbitrator will proceed ex-parte with this arbitration proceeding as against the claimants and make and publish and make and publish his award accordingly. ( 13 ) IT is further evident from he said minutes that the learned Arbitrator directed the Record Assistant to send a copy of the minutes to the claimants by registered post at an early date and hearing for the day was concluded at that stage and the matter stood adjourned till April 12, 1999 at 5 p. m. The learned Arbitrator directed the parties to note that the date fixed was preemptory. Miss Rekha Bose advocate on behalf of the claimant sent the letter dated 1. 4. 99 to the learned Arbitrator acknowledging receipt of the minutes of the fist sitting. Copy of the said letter is marked as annexure 'n' to the application. By another letter dated 12. 4. 99 copy of which is marked as annexure 'o' to the application the said Rekha Bose advocate on behalf of the claimant requested the learned Arbitrator not to proceed further in the arbitration proceeding because of inability of the claimant to pay the fees and other expenses fixed by the learned Arbitrator. By another letter dated 12. 4. 99 copy of which is marked as annexure 'o' to the application the said Rekha Bose advocate on behalf of the claimant requested the learned Arbitrator not to proceed further in the arbitration proceeding because of inability of the claimant to pay the fees and other expenses fixed by the learned Arbitrator. ( 14 ) COPY of the minutes of the second sitting of the arbitration held on 12th of April, 1999 at 5 p. m. has been marked as annexure ?oo? to the application. The minutes of the said sitting of the arbitration are quoted below:- ?parties are present as above. The claimants do not appear even today. Be it recorded that the Arbitrator have been served with two notices one dated 1. 4. 99 and the other dated 12. 4. 1999 intimating that it is not possible for the claimants to participate in this arbitration proceeding in view of the costs to be involved on the fixation of the Arbitrator's fees as made by the Arbitrator. Such was the claimant's objection even before and it has been fully clarified by the Arbitrator that considering his status and position the fee fixed by him is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. As a matter of fact the fee fixed is less than his usual fees. It was further made clear by the Arbitrator that once reference is made it is not possible for him to abandon the arbitration proceeding and send it back as requested by the claimants. It is still unfortunate that in the letter dated 12. 4. 1999 a suggestion had been made that the Arbitrator is biased against the claimants for which there is no foundation whatsoever. The Arbitrator had repeatedly requested the claimants to cooperate and had offered to conclude the adjudication within the shortest time involving the least expenditure. But unfortunately the claimants would not seen reasons on the contrary go on making unfortunate allegations as above. Since the claimants are not appearing in spite of the mandatory notice issued the Arbitrator proceeds ex-parte. Heard Mr. Chatterjee, counsel for the respondents. Mr. Chatterjee submits the detailed accounts to satisfy the Arbitrator that all the claimants' dues had been duly paid. Mr. Since the claimants are not appearing in spite of the mandatory notice issued the Arbitrator proceeds ex-parte. Heard Mr. Chatterjee, counsel for the respondents. Mr. Chatterjee submits the detailed accounts to satisfy the Arbitrator that all the claimants' dues had been duly paid. Mr. Chatterjee further filed a xerox copy of the final bill wherein there is a clear acknowledgment by the claimants that they had received the final amount due in full and final settlement of all his dues. Such was his endorsement dated 23. 12. 1979. It is rather strange that after nearly a lapse of 17 or 18 years the claimants were initiating proceedings for reference to arbitration. Hearing therefore is closed. The Arbitrator will make and publish his award within a short time. Since this reference is governed by the old Act of 1940 Mr. Chatterjee agrees that the award is to be filed in the Hon'ble High Court. Mr. Chatterjee is directed by the Arbitrator to prevail upon his client to file a non-judicial stamp of Rs. 150. 00 (Rupees one hundred fifty) only within a fortnight from this date for making and publishing the award. ? ( 15 ) THE learned Arbitrator made and published the award on 29. 4. 99. Copy of the said award has been marked as annexure 'p' to the application. It is quite evident from the materials on record that in spite of preemptory notice the claimant did neither appear nor file any statement of claim before the leaned Arbitrator. The respondent was called upon by the learned Arbitrator to submit an account statement along with a copy of the final bill to satisfy him that all the claimants' accounts with regard to the disputed construction work had been fully settled. The respondent duly fulfilled the direction of the learned Arbitrator. In these circumstances and on consideration of the materials on record the learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that he should make a Nil award in favour of the claimant and against the respondent for the following reasons which are quoted below:- (A)the claimants had no claim to put forward against the respondent though asked to do so in this proceeding. (b)on December 23, 1979 the claimant received payment of the Final Bill in full and final settlement of all his claims and dues for the work. (b)on December 23, 1979 the claimant received payment of the Final Bill in full and final settlement of all his claims and dues for the work. (c)no claim for a work in respect of which final bill was drawn up and paid about 20 years back could withstand the bar of limitation. Hence I make Nil award on this reference in favour of the claimant and as against the respondent. ? ( 16 ) THE learned Arbitrator awarded the sum of Rs. 17,500/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred) only in favour of the State respondent payable by the claimant by making the observations which are quoted as under:- ''since in my view the respondents have been unnecessarily drawn into this adjudication and since even the claimant's share of costs had to borne by the respondent on the claimant's failure to bear the same, it would be just and proper for me to award costs in favour of the respondent which I assess at- (A)rs. 12,500. 00 (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred) payable towards Arbitrator's fees and expenses. (b)rs. 5,000. 00 (Rupees five thousand) for the respondent's own expenses. Total = Rs. 17,500. 00 (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred) only. I therefore award a sum of Rs. 17,500. 00 (Rupees seventeen thousand five hundred) in favour of the respondents, State of West Bengal payable by the claimant within a period of thirty days. ? ( 17 ) THUS it is obvious that the claimant presently the petitioner did not avail himself of sufficient opportunity given by the learned Arbitrator to appear and file any statement of claim before the learned Arbitrator whereupon the learned Arbitrator passed the award in the manner as indicated hereinbefore. ( 18 ) MR. B. S. Sinha Roy the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the learned Arbitrator conducted the arbitration proceeding in absence of the claimant/petitioner and relying on the account statement along with a copy of the final bill produced on behalf of the State respondent he passed the Nil award in favour of the claimant. He has further contended that such course adopted by the learned Arbitrator is contrary to the principles of natural justice and this is sufficient to vitiate the award. He has cited the case of Payyavula Vengamma v. Payyavula Kesanna and Ors. He has further contended that such course adopted by the learned Arbitrator is contrary to the principles of natural justice and this is sufficient to vitiate the award. He has cited the case of Payyavula Vengamma v. Payyavula Kesanna and Ors. , reported in AIR 1953 SC 21 where the learned Arbitrator examined the defendant in absence of the plaintiff and also perused the Will without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to have here say in the matter and the statement which was obtained from the defendant contained several statements of fact which did not find a place in his written statement. It is in such context the Supreme Court held that the course of proceeding adopted by the learned Arbitrator was obviously contrary to the principles of natural justice and the learned Arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct that was sufficient to vitiate the award. Mr. Sinha Roy has further contended that no enquiry into the case should be undertaken behind the back of a party and if it is done the award is vitiated. He has cited the case of Sheodutt v. Pandit Vishnudutt, reported in AIR 1955 Nagpur 116 to buttress his contention on this score. He has further cited the respective cases of Banwari Lal v. Jagannath Prasad and Anr. , AIR 1958 Allahabad 717, M/s. Mehata Teja Singh and Co. v. Union of India and Anr. , AIR 1977 Delhi 231, Wazir Chand Karam Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1989 Delhi 175 and M/s. R. S. Avtar Singh and Co. v. M/s. NPCC Ltd. , AIR 1993 Delhi 230 in support of the case of the petitioner. But on going through the aforesaid decisions cited by Mr. Sinha Roy the learned advocate for the petitioner, I find that none of these rulings renders and assistance to the case of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. It is no doubt settled principle of law that if the learned Arbitrator decides the dispute without giving opportunity of hearing to any party, that will be violation of the principles of natural justice which will vitiate the award. But such is not the case here. It is no doubt settled principle of law that if the learned Arbitrator decides the dispute without giving opportunity of hearing to any party, that will be violation of the principles of natural justice which will vitiate the award. But such is not the case here. From the materials on record it is manifestly clear that sufficient opportunity was afforded by the learned Arbitrator to the claimant to appear in the arbitration proceeding and put forward the statement of claim but in spite of that the claimant did not avail himself of such opportunity. As mentioned hereinbefore, in spite of peremptory notice the claimant neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim before the learned Arbitrator whereupon the learned Arbitrator directed the respondent to submit the account statement along with a copy of a bill to ascertain whether the claimant's account with regard to the construction work in dispute had been fully settled. In my considered view the course adopted by the learned Arbitrator is quite just and proper and it can in no way be inferred that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice in the matter of conducting the arbitration proceeding. Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya the learned senior advocate appearing for the State respondent has rightly argued that when sufficient opportunity of hearing was given by the learned Arbitrator to the petitioner to participate in the arbitration proceeding and such opportunity was not availed of by the petitioner on flimsy ground, no question of violation of the principles of natural justice can at all arise in such case. Such contention raised by Mr. Bhattacharya is well-founded for the reasons already stated. ( 19 ) MR. Sinha Roy has argued that the learned Arbitrator erred in placing reliance on the account statement and the copy of the final bill produced by the State respondent before him in terms of his direction. He has further argued that the learned Arbitrator based his decision on his personal knowledge and as such the award is vitiated. Sinha Roy has argued that the learned Arbitrator erred in placing reliance on the account statement and the copy of the final bill produced by the State respondent before him in terms of his direction. He has further argued that the learned Arbitrator based his decision on his personal knowledge and as such the award is vitiated. He has cited the case of Sheodutt (supra) where it was held when an arbitration agreement did not authorise the Arbitrators to use their personal knowledge in reaching a decision in their award, the Arbitrators were not entitled to import into the consideration of the case their own knowledge and if any of them used such knowledge relating to a vital matter in dispute without communicating the information so derived to the party adversely affected by it and denying any opportunity to him to adduce his evidence on the vital question, the award was vitiated by misconduct. It passes my comprehension how the said observation can help the petitioner when it is quite clear from the materials on record that the petitioner did not avail himself of any opportunity sufficiently afforded by the learned Arbitrator to him to participate in the arbitration proceeding whereupon the learned Arbitrator called upon the State respondent to produce the account statement along with a copy of the final bill to ascertain whether the claimant's account with regard to the disputed construction work had been fully settled. So the above argument advanced by Mr. Sinha Roy has got no force at all. ( 20 ) MR. Bhattacharya the learned senior advocate for the State respondent has drawn my attention to the fact that the petitioner received the payment in full and final settlement of all claims and demands relating to the work and he neither endorsed any objection on the bill at the time of receiving final payments nor there was any reason and/or evidence that any coercion was exercised by the department. He has further argued that in view of receipt of payment by the petitioner in full and final settlement without any protest no question of further claim can arise. He has cited the case of Union of India v. M/s. Popular Builders, Calcutta, reported in 2000 0 AIR (SCW) 3690 in this regard. In the said case cited by Mr. He has further argued that in view of receipt of payment by the petitioner in full and final settlement without any protest no question of further claim can arise. He has cited the case of Union of India v. M/s. Popular Builders, Calcutta, reported in 2000 0 AIR (SCW) 3690 in this regard. In the said case cited by Mr. Bhattacharya the contractor accepted the final bill without protest and subsequently raised certain demands on the ground that some additional work done by him was not included in the final bill. An Arbitrator was appointed. The Union of India participated in the arbitration proceedings which culminated in the award. Thereafter the Union of India filed objections under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to get the award set aside. The Union of India sought to raise objection that after the final bill had been accepted by the contractor without protest no arbitrable dispute remained. Such objection was sought to be raised by the Union of India for the first time in appeal before the Supreme Court. It was held by the Supreme Court that the existence of a dispute being the condition precedent for appointment of an Arbitrator and the contractor having received the final bill without any protest, the plea raised by Union of India could not be outright rejected. Mr. Sinha Roy has contended on the other hand that the question as to whether payment has been made in full and final settlement or any amount remains due to be paid is to be considered by the learned Arbitrator when there is a dispute about the same and since the learned Arbitrator has not decided the dispute the respondent cannot get any advantage on the basis of the final bill which the learned Arbitrator has relied on. He has cited the case of Jayesh Engineering Works v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. , reported in 2000 10 SCC 178 and the case of Union of India v. D. Bose (supra) on this score. But in the instant case, as indicated hereinbefore, it is an admitted position that the petitioner received the payment in full and final settlement of all claims relating to the work without any protest. As noted by the learned Arbitrator, such payment was received on December 23, 1979. But in the instant case, as indicated hereinbefore, it is an admitted position that the petitioner received the payment in full and final settlement of all claims relating to the work without any protest. As noted by the learned Arbitrator, such payment was received on December 23, 1979. The proceedings for reference to arbitration had been initiated by the petitioner after lapse of 17/18 years. The petitioner neither appeared nor filed any statement of claim before the learned Arbitrator in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him. Consequently the learned Arbitrator passed the Nil award in favour of the claimant for the reasons already stated. In such state of affairs it is now idle for the petitioner to turn around and say that the question relating to dispute over his claim was not adjudicated upon by the learned Arbitrator. No person can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. The materials on record point out in unmistakable terms that the learned Arbitrator followed the principles of natural justice by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner which the petitioner himself did not avail of on flimsy ground for reasons best known to him. In the light of the aforesaid context I find that the contentions raised by Mr. Sinha Roy challenging the award in question fail both in factual and legal aspects. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in the instant application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the petitioner. The application is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Prayer for stay of operation of this order made by the learned advocate for the petitioner is considered and rejected. Parties to act on xerox signed copy of this dictated order on usual undertaking. Application dismissed.