SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) IA No. 2876/2002 (U/sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940) the petitioner was awarded the contract for the work of 720 MIG/lig houses at trilok Puri in pursuance to Agreement No. 44/ee/ed-9/90-91. Disputes arose between the parties and in terms of Clause 25 of the general terms and conditions of the contract, Sh. N. K. Sharma, Superintending Engineer Arbitration i was appointed the sole arbitrator by the chief Engineer vide letter dated 23. 02. 99. The arbitrator entered upon reference and made and published the award dated 07. 03. 2000. The petitioner aggrieved by the same has filed the present objections under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (herein- after referred to as the Said Act ). ( 2 ) A perusal of the award shows that insofar as claim no. 1 is concerned, the petitioner accepted the fact that the finally settled claim has been subsequently received being the amount withheld from the running bill on account of shortage of money available with the respondent. Thus learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the objections to this claim. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner however submits by reference to the other claims no. 2 to 10 that in view of Clause 25 undisputedly the award had to be a reasoned award and the award in question cannot be categorized as a reasoned award. ( 4 ) A perusal of the aforesaid claims show that all of them have been rejected. The only phraseology used is ?from the evidence brought on record, the claimants have never sought this claim at the material time in terms of the agreement and further they have continued to accept the payment of running account bills and also in final bill and therefore discharged the respondents from any further liability. ? This common phraseology has been used for claims 2 to 6 and 9. ( 5 ) IN respect of claim no. 7, 8 and 10, phraseology used is ? The claimant shave not established this part of the claim in terms of the governing agreement to which this arbitral reference pertains and accordingly stands disallowed. ? there not even a whisper of any discussion as to which terms of the contract has not been complied with or what terms govern which claim. The claimant shave not established this part of the claim in terms of the governing agreement to which this arbitral reference pertains and accordingly stands disallowed. ? there not even a whisper of any discussion as to which terms of the contract has not been complied with or what terms govern which claim. ( 6 ) IT is not in doubt that an award of an arbitrator is not to be like a judgment of the court but at least the thought process of the arbitrator must be available. In this behalf, reference can be made to the Division Bench Judgment of this court in DDA v. Bhagat Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Anr. , 2004 (3) arb. LR 54. If even those tests are applied, the present award fails the same in this behalf. The award is almost mechanical in its language and the language does not give any reasons. This award cannot thus be categorized as a reasoned award. ( 7 ) CLAIMS no. 11 and 12 relate to interest and costs which have been rejected on the ground that the claims of the petitioner have been disallowed. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view, that the award cannot be sustained in respect of claims no. 2 to 12 on account of absence of reasons and must thus be set aside. ( 9 ) THE application stands disposed of. CS (OS) No. 794/2000 ( 10 ) THE award of the sole arbitrator Mr. N. K. Sharma, dated 07. 03. 2000 is made rule of the court insofar as claim no. 1 is concerned but is set aside insofar as claims no 2 to 12 are concerned. ( 11 ) CHIEF Engineer, DDA is directed to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 to examine these claims afresh and such appointment be made within thirty days of the receipt of the order. ( 12 ) PARTIES are left to bear their own costs. ( 13 ) DECREE sheet be drawn up accordingly. ( 14 ) DASTI to learned counsel for the petitioner. .