T. MEENA KUMARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS CMA is filed questioning the order and decree dated 4-7-2002 passed in OP no. 77 of 2001 by the learned I Addl. Chief judge, CCC, Secunderabad wherein the OP filed by the appellants herein against the award of the second respondent dated 31-12-2000 has been dismissed confirming the said award. ( 2 ) THE case of the appellants, as projected in the OP, is as follows: the appellants called for open tenders for the earth work from Ch. 24150 M to ch. 27700 M between Dharur rukmapur stations in connection with doubling of tracks between Vikarabad and Tandur Sections and the first respondent submitted his tender for the said offer and the tender was finalized in strict conformity of the guidelines issued. It is stated that the said work has to be completed by 5-5-1997. Accordingly, an agreement was entered into and the parties accepted the same. ( 3 ) THE nature of the work includes the I ft er works as the variation quantities in the name stretch by the predecessor Contractor m. Y. J. Venkata Rao in the two contracts and that variation in the quantities was occurred due to the revision of alignment effected for easing as well as elimination of a few curves. As the predecessor of the first respondent had already executed some work by then and his agreement quantities were on the higher side, the agreements were ordered for closure in order to execute the left over quantities at competitive rates through open tenders. It is also stated that the importance for completion of the said work within the stipulated time has been mentioned in para 2. 2. 1 of the particulars of the work and the first respondent agreed to complete the said work within the stipulated time. It is also stated that the importance for completion of the said work within the stipulated time has been mentioned in para 2. 2. 1 of the particulars of the work and the first respondent agreed to complete the said work within the stipulated time. ( 4 ) FURTHER, the appellants submit that though the first respondent submitted a programme on 28-1-1997, the claimant left huge gap between commitment and performance and the petitioners addressed cautioning the first respondent to enhance in puts so as to complete the work within the time stipulated and the appellants also granted extension of period without penalty in the beginning and later issued a termination notice and revocation and the second extension was given with penalty since the first respondent did not perform to the accepted conditions and thus committed breach and hence the right imposed on the appellants to impose reasonable penalties cannot be taken away from the appellants. ( 5 ) THE next contention of the appellants before the learned I Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, secunderabad is that the second respondent-Arbitrator did not follow the procedure and he did not adduce evidence and also did not provide reasonable opportunity to the appellants and that this court has no right to appoint arbitrator and hence the award of the second respondent is liable to be set aside. As the learned I addl. Chief Judge passed the judgment confirming the award of the second respondent without taking into consideration of all the aspects that have been raised by the appellants, the judgment in OP is also liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the first respondent filed written statement pleading that the tender notice in respect of present works related to left over works only and as his predecessor-contractor faced very hard and rocky soil during excavation of the earth work and as it was beyond his estimation for which he was not prepared to work at the rates agreed upon. The earth work also included cutting off all types of soils including of disc integrated rock with boulders of any size or continuous rock which required blasting at the site and to blast the rocks, they have to acquire permission from the district Collector, Ranga Reddy District and they could get licence on 14-2-1997. The earth work also included cutting off all types of soils including of disc integrated rock with boulders of any size or continuous rock which required blasting at the site and to blast the rocks, they have to acquire permission from the district Collector, Ranga Reddy District and they could get licence on 14-2-1997. It is also stated that the appellants requested him to take over the stretch from Ch. 24150 M to ch. 26040 M which was completed in all respects as per the programme. Due to above circumstances, he could not complete the entire work within the time stipulated and hence requested time upto 4-11-1997 without penalty but the appellants extended time with penalty and hence he requested for waiver of penalty in his letter dated 2-2-1998. The arbitrator passed award by taking into consideration of all the factors, the said award needs no interference and the learned I Addl. Chief Judge dismissed the OP filed by the appellants by giving due regard to all the factors and hence the CMA is liable to be dismissed. ( 7 ) THUS, the main controversy in between the appellants and the first respondent is with regard to grant of claim Nos. , 4, 6, 8 and 11 by the second respondent-arbitrator, which are as follows: ( 21 ) IT is also to be seen that as per clause No. 45 (a) of the General Conditions of Contract, a tenderer can dispute the classification of soil within seven days. As seen from the material on record, the first respondent never raised any such dispute within the time of seven days and hence the first respondent shall not be permitted to raise any such dispute after lapse of seven days as per conditions of Clause No. 45 (a) of the General Conditions of Contract. All these factors have not been taken into consideration by the learned I Addl. Chief judge, Secunderabad. Moreover, the first respondent did not produce any material in support of his claim that he spent more than rs. 110/- per cubic metre while carrying out the work mentioned in claim No. 4. Further, clause 17 (3) of the General Conditions of contract prohibits grant of compensation or damages. In view of the above circumstances, the relief granted to this claim by the second respondent has to be set aside. 110/- per cubic metre while carrying out the work mentioned in claim No. 4. Further, clause 17 (3) of the General Conditions of contract prohibits grant of compensation or damages. In view of the above circumstances, the relief granted to this claim by the second respondent has to be set aside. ( 22 ) WITH regard to claim No. 8 i. e. , refund of Rs. 1,74,419/- penalties recovered, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have imposed penalty on the first respondent as he failed to complete the work within the stipulated time of agreement and therefore the appellants imposed penalty in terms of the conditions of the contract agreement. ( 23 ) IN this connection, it is to be seen that the first respondent has to complete the work by 5-5-1997 and in the contract agreement it has been specifically mentioned that the time is the essence of the contract and that the first respondent has agreed in specific terms that he will complete the work at any cost within the agreement period without fail. Thus, the duty is cast on the first respondent to stick on to the terms of the agreement and he has to complete the work within the time stipulated. In view of the specific undertaking of the first respondent that he will complete the work within the stipulated time of 5-5-1997, the first respondent has to take all necessary steps with regard to obtaining licence for blasting of rocks etc. As seen from the material, the first respondent applied for licence for blasting operation on 6-2-1997 and he got licence on 14-2-1997 i. e. , 8 days from the next date of making application. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the delay in execution of the work was occurred due to delay in getting licence for blasting the rocks etc. has no legs to stand in view of the fact that he obtained licence within 8 days from the next date of making application for obtaining licence. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the delay in execution of the work was occurred due to delay in getting licence for blasting the rocks etc. has no legs to stand in view of the fact that he obtained licence within 8 days from the next date of making application for obtaining licence. It is specifically stated by the appellants that hough the first respondent submitted programme on 28-1-97 and specific kogramme had been followed, the laimants left huge gap between commitment and performance and that the appellants brought to the notice of the first espondent about the early sign of failure on 28-2-1997 in their letter No. W/con/496/2970 dated 28-2-1997 but the first respondent did lot take any steps to reply to that letter and herefore this Court has to form an opinion hat the claimant had got nothing to say on his performance exhibited by him at the early stage of contract. Had the first respondent taken necessary steps pursuant to the letter of the appellants dated 28-2-1997; he would have completed the work within the time stipulated. ( 24 ) FURTHER, it is to be seen that the appellants have granted extension of time without penalty from 6-5-1997 to 5-7-1997 i. e. , for a further period of two months upon the circumstances put forth by the first respondent. The reasons for non-completion of work within the time stipulated are that the delay in getting licence for possession of explosives, naxalite problems and instructions from the police authority to stop the blasting, strike by truck owners from 30-3-1997 to 10-4-1997 and restriction on moving blasting material. It is to be seen that the appellants with a view to provide opportunity to the first respondent to enable him to complete the work, granted two months time i. e. , from 6-5-1997 to 5-7-1997 without imposing penalty. In spite of granting time till 5-7-1997, the first respondent did not complete the work and ultimately, the first respondent was granted another four extensions of time by imposing penalty. All these things would go to show that the appellants have cautioned him at the beginning of the commencement of the work that the time is essence of the contract and that they have extended time till 5-7-1997 without penalty. All these things would go to show that the appellants have cautioned him at the beginning of the commencement of the work that the time is essence of the contract and that they have extended time till 5-7-1997 without penalty. As the first respondent failed to complete the work, penalty was imposed against him only in terms of agreement of contract. Further, the appellants did not impose penalty, while extending time due to some variance in the nature of work. All these factors would go to show that the appellants have taken note of the difficulties that have been encountered by the first respondent while imposing penalty. Since the first respondent did not complete the work within the time agreed upon by him and in terms of the conditions of the contract, the appellants imposed fine amount and hence the same cannot be directed to be refunded to the first respondent. ( 25 ) WITH regard to claim No. 11 i. e. , granting of interest, it is to be seen that clauses 16 (3) and 64. 5 of the General conditions of the Contract prohibits granting of interest. Since claims Nos. 4 and 8 have been rejected by this Court in earlier paras, the question of granting interest to the first respondent does not arise and hence he is not entitled for the same. ( 26 ) FOR claim No. 6, the second respondent has granted a sum of rs. 3,42,039/ -. The said amount has to be calculated at the time of settling the final bill and hence the appellants have to calculate the final bill and pay the amount, if not already paid, to the first respondent within a four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the due date of payment of the said amount. ( 27 ) FOR the foregoing discussion, the award of the second respondent-arbitrator, as affirmed by the I Addl. District Judge, secunderabad in his judgment in OP No. 77 of 2001 dated 4-7-2002 is set aside and accordiningl the CMA is allowed. Ho costs.