JUDGMENT 1. The challenge in this petition is to an Award dated 26th May 2004 passed by the Sole Arbitrator rejecting the claims of the Petitioner and allowing the counter-claims of the Respondent Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD’) directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 29,49,247/-together with the pendente lite interest at 2% per month till the date of payment. 2. By a notice inviting tender (`NIT’) dated 9th December 2001, MCD invited tenders for allotment of contract with respect to display of advertisement through kiosks on street light poles existing on roads maintained by MCD in the Civil Lines Zone. The contract was for the O.M.P. No. 25 of 2005 Page 1 of 4 period between January 2002 and 31st December 2003 on a monthly licence fee basis. The Petitioner was the highest bidder and was awarded the contract at a monthly licence fee of Rs. 5,51,000/-. A letter of offer dated th January 2002 was issued calling upon the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 22,04,000/-towards security deposit equivalent to three months’ licence fee and one month advance licence fee. The Petitioner was also asked to deposit advance advertisement tax. 3. On 15th January 2002 the Petitioner deposited the requisite amount accepting the offer of allotment of the contract. The Petitioner states that the MCD failed to issue a formal letter of allotment and that the letter dated th January 2002 could not be termed as an allotment letter. It is stated that on 16th February 2002 the MCD raised a demand for the ground rent for the allotted area for the month of February 2002. The MCD, however, maintained that the 25th January 2002 was the appropriate allotment letter which was admittedly received by the Petitioner and that it was delivered to the Petitioner on 16th February 2002 with the enclosed certificate of allotment. As regards the agreement to be executed in terms of Clause 27 of the terms and conditions of allotment, the MCD states that the said agreement was to be executed on a non-judicial stamp paper but the Petitioner never executed the same. On 28th February 2002 the Petitioner sent a demand draft for Rs.2,75,500/-towards the licence fee for the period th March 2002 to 31st March 2002. However, the MCD considered this to be a payment for the month of February 2002. On 28th February 2002 the Petitioner sent a demand draft for Rs.2,75,500/-towards the licence fee for the period th March 2002 to 31st March 2002. However, the MCD considered this to be a payment for the month of February 2002. It is maintained by MCD that the failure by the Petitioner to deposit monthly licence fee thereafter led to an accumulation of arrears of licence fee. In view of the fact that the Petitioner defaulted in making payment of licence fee, the competent authority of the MCD cancelled the allotment by a letter dated 31st July 2002. 4. Before the learned Arbitrator, the Petitioner made as many as nine claims each of which was rejected by the learned Arbitrator by the impugned Award dated 26th May 2004. The learned Arbitrator found that the claims of the Petitioner were only supported by his own affidavit. No documentary evidence whatsoever was produced to show that the Petitioner had suffered any business loss or damages or for engagement of the labour, purchasing material etc. 5. The Petitioner has sought to enclose with the present petition certain documents which the MCD, in its reply, has objected to, on the ground that they were not placed before the learned Arbitrator. No rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioner to deny this stand of the MCD. 6. As regards the counter-claims of the MCD, the learned Arbitrator found that the licence fees were due for the period between April 2002 and July 2002 and proportionate licence fee for four days from 1st August 2002 to 4th August 2002. MCD also claimed a sum of Rs. 21,600/-on account of advertisement tax. The learned Arbitrator held that the MCD proved the terms and conditions of the contract (Ex.RW1/1) and that in terms thereof the Petitioner was liable to pay the MCD Rs. 29,49,247/-. 7. This Court is not persuaded to interfere with the impugned Award of the learned Arbitrator. With the Petitioner not having produced any documents to substantiate its claims, the learned Arbitrator could not be held to be in error in rejecting the claims which were based only on the affidavit of the Petitioner. Even in the present petition, the Petitioner has not referred to any of the documents which were before the Arbitrator, which could be said to substantiate the Petitioner’s claims. Even in the present petition, the Petitioner has not referred to any of the documents which were before the Arbitrator, which could be said to substantiate the Petitioner’s claims. On the other hand, allowing of the counter-claims of the MCD was based on the terms and conditions of the contract and the amounts specified therein. There appears to have been no denial by the Petitioner that it did not pay any licence fee from April 2002 to July 2002. In the circumstances, no ground has been made out for interference with the impugned Award under Section 34 of the Act. 8. The petition is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs.