Order This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Subordinate. Judge-I, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Misc. Case No. 13/2005 by which the award passed by the Arbitrator in favour of the respondent for a total sum of Rs. 6,79,500/- plus future interest has been upheld. 2. From the materials on record it appears that the respondent had been awarded a contract for the construction of residential building of Medical Officer and T.D. Quarter at Chotanagra in the district of West Singhb, hum which was to be completed within a period of one year and for this purpose, an agreement also had been executed between the appellant-State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and the respondent-Contractor. 3. It is stated that the work under the contract was started on 10.2.1992 and in course of execution of the contract certain demands were made by the respondent-contractor but finally a dispute between the appellant-State and the respondent-contractor arose due to which the matter was referred to an Arbitrator in pursuance to the agreement which admittedly envisages a provision for appointment of an Arbitrator in view of existence of a dispute. 4. The Arbitrator, after adjudication of the matter, finally passed an award for a sum of Rs. 6,79,500/- with which the appellant-State felt aggrieved and hence filed objection before the Court of Subordinate Judge-I at Chaibasa. The Subordinate Judge, thereafter scrutinized the award passed by the Arbitrator and was pleased to dismiss the Misc. Petition filed by the appellant-State after recording a finding that the learned Arbitrator has not misconducted himself while conducting the proceeding and further was pleased to hold that the award had not been procured improperly by the respondent. Thus, the award passed by the Arbitrator was ordered to be made a rule of the Court. The appellant-State still felt aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Subordinate Judge and preferred this appeal. 5. Thus, the award passed by the Arbitrator was ordered to be made a rule of the Court. The appellant-State still felt aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Subordinate Judge and preferred this appeal. 5. Having heard the Standing Counsel representing the appellant-State and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Subordinate Judge, nothing material was found which could persuade this Court to hold that the impugned award passed by the Arbitrator required interference by the Subordinate Judge while entertaining objections against the award nor anything could be inferred as to how the Subordinate Judge has erred by refusing to interfere with the award passed in favour of the respondent. 6. In fact, the Standing Counsel also, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, could not establish in any manner as to what exactly were the objections which had been raised by the respondent State while assailing the award before the Subordinate Judge. The objection that had been raised, by the appellant-State before the court below was merely a theoretical submission that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself in passing the award in favour of the respondent without explaining in what way or manner the Arbitrator had misconducted. It is perhaps for this reason that in the impugned judgment and order, there is absolutely no mention of the objection which had been raised by the appellant-State and it was merely submitted that the award was fit to be quashed' and set aside since the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in passing the award in favour of the respondent without indicating in any manner as to how the Arbitrator was in error in delivering the award so as to persuade the Court to interfere with the same. At the stage of appeal also nothing could be pointed out indicating that the award passed by the Arbitrator was erroneous in any manner so as to hold that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself in confirming the award and making the same a rule of the Court. 7. Under the circumstance, it is difficult to entertain this appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself.