Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Courts below whereby the respondent has been granted interest for pre-reference period i.e. the date of final bill till the date of reference. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the orders passed by the Courts below whereby the objections filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. 2. Shri Bhardwaj has argued that the award of the Arbitrator is an unreasoned award and, therefore, such an award is liable to be set aside. It is further contended that the Arbitrator has given interest for the pre-reference period which is not permissible in law. 3. It is well settled that the Arbitrator is not required to give reasons in support of his award. It is only when the terms of the contract require that the Arbitrator should give reasons for the award, it is obligatory for the Arbitrator to give reasons. In the present case, there was no such condition. Therefore, in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority etc. v. Chokhamal Contractors etc., AIR 1990 SC 1426=1989(1) Arb. LR 430 (SC), there is no misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator in not giving reasons while determining the dispute of the parties. 4. The dispute regarding competency of the Arbitrator to give interest for the pre-reference period has been decided by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa v. N.C. Budharaj (Dead) by LRs., 2001(1) RCR (Civil) 613=2001(1) Arb. LR 346 (SC). In view of the above judgment of the Constitution Bench, there is no merit in the said objection as well. 5. It is then contended by the learned counsel that interest @ 12% per annum is in excessive. There is nothing on record to show that the interest is in excessive. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the Courts below so as to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.