JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J. 1. This appeal, under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2010, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun, in Misc. Case No. 20 of 2009, State of U.P. through Executive Engineer Yamuna Link Channel Construction Division Saharanpur vs. M/s. Premier Construction Company, whereby the objections filed by the appellant U/S 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short the Act), were dismissed and the award dated 19-6-2009, was made rule of the court. 2. The relief sought in the appeal is that the objections of the appellant filed U/S 30/33 of the Act before the court below be allowed and the judgment and order passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun as well as the award dated 19-6-2009 be set aside. 3. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that a contract agreement No. 09/S.E./84-85, dated 5.1.1985, for excavation earth work in Khara Power Channel from K.M. 10.86 to 11.50 between the appellants and the respondent M/s Premier Construction Company was executed on 15.1.1985. In the above work the contractor raised certain disputes which were referred to sole Arbitrator Sri V.K. Mittal, Superintending Engineer. 4. The respondent/contractor filed claims before the Arbitrator and the same was contested by the appellants by filing the written statement and adducing evidence before the Arbitrator. After hearing both the parties the learned Arbitrator allowed the Claim No.1 mentioned in the arbitration award and awarded a sum of Rs. 39,05,930/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from 2.3.1988 to the date of award and further interest @ 6% per annum was also awarded from the date of award till the date of passing of the decree by the court or the date of payment whichever is earlier. 5. Thereafter the appellants filed objections against the award before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun U/s 30/33 of the Act on the ground that the award has been given against the terms of contract agreement and the Arbitrator has misconducted himself as well as the arbitration proceedings. The respondent/contractor also filed reply/W.S. before the learned Civil Judge and the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties rejected the objections of the appellants filed U/S 30/33 of the Act and made the award rule of the court U/S 14/17 of the Act. 6. The respondent/contractor also filed reply/W.S. before the learned Civil Judge and the learned Civil Judge after hearing both the parties rejected the objections of the appellants filed U/S 30/33 of the Act and made the award rule of the court U/S 14/17 of the Act. 6. Aggrieved further, the appellants have preferred this appeal on the ground that the claim No.1 has been allowed against the provisions of contract clause Nos. 7.06 and 1.04. The learned Arbitrator as well as the learned Civil Judge has committed an error by treating the excavation of hard rock as an extra work. The appellants further alleged that claim No.1 is also against the provision of clause 1.45 of the agreement and clause 35 of the agreement Form 111. It is further alleged that the Arbitrator as well as the learned Civil Judge have overlooked and misinterpreted the agreement clauses particularly when the excavation of rock was treated as an extra work and they have wrongly differentiated the hard-rock different from the rock. It is further alleged by the appellants that the interest was awarded against the terms of agreement. The claim of the contractor is also barred by the provision of clause 1.45 of the agreement. 7. I have gone through the impugned award. The following claims were raised before the Arbitrator:- (1) Under claim No.1 a sum of Rs. 51,16,680/- along with interest was claimed as balance amount of excavation of 2,33,000 cubic meters. (2) Under claim No.2 a sum of Rs. 70,125/- along with interest was claimed as profit of work of 40 meter reach which was taken back from the contractor. (3) Payment of excavation of hard rock after 2.8.1988 @ 46.75 per cubic meter. (4) Cost of arbitration proceeding and other relief. 8. Under claim No.1 the learned Arbitrator has given finding that upto 2-8-1988 the contractor has done the excavation of 2,33,000 cubic meter hard rock and the department has made payment @ Rs. 24.79 per cubic meter whereas the contractor is entitled to get the payment of this excavation of 2,33,000 hard rock @ Rs. 46.75 per cubic meter and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 39,05,930/-. 9. Claim No.2 was rejected. 10. Claim No.3 was also rejected holding that the contractor could not produce any evidence to establish this fact that he had done ay work of excavation of hard rock after 2.8.1988. 11. 46.75 per cubic meter and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs. 39,05,930/-. 9. Claim No.2 was rejected. 10. Claim No.3 was also rejected holding that the contractor could not produce any evidence to establish this fact that he had done ay work of excavation of hard rock after 2.8.1988. 11. Under claim No.4 parties were directed to bear their own cost of the arbitration proceeding. 12. The Arbitrator also awarded interest @ 12% per annum on the sum of Rs. 39,05,930/- from the dated 2.89.1988 till the date of award and a further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of award till the date of decree of the court or the day of payment whichever is earlier. 13. In the W.S. filed before the Arbitrator by the appellants it was pleaded that it was a clear stipulation in the tender notice that the contractor after making spot inspection and after satisfying the nature of work shall submit the tender and so far as the excavation part is concerned, in Schedule-C mixed strata was referred in which rock, clay, sand and stone were included and the rate given by the contractor was Rs. 27.75 per cubic meter. Thereafter it was reduced by the contractor himself after negotiation to Rs. 24.79 per cubic meter and the claim was preferred after closing of the work. Therefore, the contractor did not comply the agreement conditions 1.45, 1.46. Further in the contract agreement there was stipulation that the appellants were at liberty to take back the work from the contractor at any stage if the work is being delayed. 14. Before the Arbitrator the claimant/respondent has pleaded that the date of tender was 29-09-1984 at 3 p.m. The tender papers were prepared by the department one day before and the tender was given to the contractor, therefore, it was impossible for the contractor to make spot inspection by making drill holes and to see what is the nature of site. Therefore, only by excavation of ditch the earth was tested and the contractor could not anticipate the excavation of hard rock and in Schedule-C the nature of earth was mentioned as composite. It was also pleaded that the hard rock was not included in the contract agreement as for the excavation of hard rock, and for cutting of rocks there need technique and machineries and also blasting was needed. It was also pleaded that the hard rock was not included in the contract agreement as for the excavation of hard rock, and for cutting of rocks there need technique and machineries and also blasting was needed. According to the contractor this fact was in the notice of the Executive Engineer of the Department and the contractor was obliged to do the work as per clause 1.49 of the contract agreement. 15. On the point of work mentioned in Schedule-C the learned Arbitrator in para-16 of the award has observed that by a perusal of clause 7.06 which stipulates detail specification in earth work, it does not appear that in the excavation work the rate of excavation of continuous hard rock was given. The learned Arbitrator by perusal of clause-7.06 and Schedule-C which speaks about the nature of work, presumed that only composite starta was included for excavation and after starting the work hard rock was excavated , therefore, the rate would be higher than mentioned in the agreement and so far as the clause-16 is concerned, it has been observed by the learned Arbitrator that it was not necessary for the contractor to make a request for payment of extra work and it was duty of the department to make payment of extra work. It was in the notice of the Engineer in charge that extra work is not included in the contract agreement and no rate was fixed, therefore, the dispute was left to decide by the Arbitrator. It was further observed by the Arbitrator that the time was extended by the department due to the reason that hard rock starta was not anticipated. So far as the quantity of work is concerned the learned Arbitrator considered the quantity of excavation of 2,33,000 cubic meter from the measurement book dated 2.8.1988, for which work the department has paid the contractor @ Rs. 24.79 per cubic meter and it was held that it was not proper to make the payment at normal excavation rate since the hard rocks/Chattans were excavated and the contractor is liable to get the higher rate. The contractor has written letters dated 20-12-1986 and 2.8.1988 wherein he had informed that unexpected rocky strata was excavated hence time be extended and it was extended. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. The contractor has written letters dated 20-12-1986 and 2.8.1988 wherein he had informed that unexpected rocky strata was excavated hence time be extended and it was extended. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. Now this court has to examine:- (1) Whether the excavation of hard rocks was included in the contract agreement or it was an extra work? (2) Whether it was duty of Engineer in charge to detect the excavation work of hard rock as an extra work and the contractor had not to make any request in this regard? (3) Whether the award was made against the contract clauses and the Arbitrator has misconducted himself and the arbitration proceedings? 18. Learned Additional C.S.C. Sri S.P.S. Panwar firstly has contended that the award was made by the Arbitrator against the clause Nos. 7.06 and 1.04 of the contract agreement. 19. Secondly it was contended that the claim was time barred. The contractor never requested for making payment of hard rock as an extra work to the Engineer in charge. 20. Thirdly it was contended that the interpretation which was made by the Arbitrator relating to excavation of hard rock and the rock, is against the contract terms. In clause 7.00 of the contract agreement speaks about excavation of all types of rocks was included and after being satisfied with the quality of strata as per clause 1.04 the contractor was awarded the contractor. It has also been argued that the Arbitrator in its finding has misinterpreted the clause. The learned Arbitrator has misread the clause 16 of the contract agreement and also the clauses 1.44 and 1.45 relating to limitation. 21. It has also been contended that the learned Civil Judge has also committed the same error in rejecting the objections. 22. In support of his contentions learned Addl. C.S.C. has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) V.G. George vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 762 (2) Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 283 (3) Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. J.C. Budharaja Government and Mining Contractor, (1999) 8 SCC 122 (4) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Wig Brothers Builders and Engineers Private Limited, (2010) 13 SCC 377 23. In reply the learned Senior Advocate Sri S.K. Jain appearing on behalf of the respondent has contended that it is well settled principle of law that the court cannot substitute his own view in place of the view of Arbitrator sitting like an appellate court and if the interpretation of the consideration of the Arbitrator is conceivable and possible then the High Court has no jurisdiction to modify the award. It is further contended that the contractor had done extra work by cutting hard rock which was not included in the contract agreement and the learned Arbitrator has rightly allowed the claim of the contractor as an extra work. The work done by the contractor was in the notice of the Engineer in charge and Executive Engineer. Time extension application was moved and in the time extension order it was admitted that the Department was not anticipating the excavation of hard rock therefore the time was extended and the leaned Arbitrator has rightly interpreted the clause-16 also. Since the appellants did not make the payment despite oral requests of the contractor, therefore, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator and learned Arbitrator after considering this fact that there was no occasion in a short span of time to examine the strata by making holes by drill and in these circumstances the claims were rightly awarded. On the issue of interest it was contended that the interest has been awarded after coming into force the Interest Act thus the Arbitrator has not misconducted himself and the proceedings. The learned Senior Advocate also contended that against the interpretation of agreement clauses made by the learned Arbitrator, there cannot be any other contrary possible and conceivable view. 24. In support of his contentions learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent has placed reliance on the following cases:- (1) B.V. Radha Krishan vs. Sponge Iron India Limited, AIR 1997 SC 1324 (2) Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1989 (1) ALR 306 (3) M/s. Hidustan Tea Co. vs. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co. and Another, AIR 1987 SC 81 (4) Bhagwati Olxygen Ltd. vs. Hindustan Copper Limited, 2005 (1) ALR 608 (SC) 608 (5) Ghulam Mohammad Dar vs. State of J & K and Others, 2008 (70) ALR 478 (6) B.V. Radha Krishna vs. Sponge Iron India Limited, AIR 1997 SC 1324 25. vs. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co. and Another, AIR 1987 SC 81 (4) Bhagwati Olxygen Ltd. vs. Hindustan Copper Limited, 2005 (1) ALR 608 (SC) 608 (5) Ghulam Mohammad Dar vs. State of J & K and Others, 2008 (70) ALR 478 (6) B.V. Radha Krishna vs. Sponge Iron India Limited, AIR 1997 SC 1324 25. I have gone through the above cited judgments by both the parties. 26. Firstly I take up the cases cited on behalf of the appellants. In the case of V.G. George vs. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and Another, (1999) 3 SCC 762 , it has been held in para 17 of the judgment by the Apex Court that where the amount awarded is beyond the scope of the agreement entered into by the parties, such award cannot be sustained. 27. In the case of Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 283 , it has been held that where fundamental terms of agreement between the parties are ignored by the arbitrator, such arbitrator exceeds his jurisdiction even where the arbitration clause itself is widely worded and the arbitrator cannot be act arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or independently of the contract. Deliberate departure or conscious disregard of the contract not only manifests the disregard of his authority or misconduct on his part but it may tantamount to mala fide action. 28. In the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. J.C. Budharaja Government and Mining Contractor, (1999) 8 SCC 122 , it has specifically been held that the arbitrator cannot exceed his jurisdiction or go beyond the terms of the agreement. Where he did so would be jurisdictional facts and required to be examined by the Court. Even if the arbitrator has jurisdiction to entertain the claim, he may be prohibited by the terms of the contract to pass award on a specific item and in such case award passed on that item ignoring the prohibition would amount to jurisdiction error. Award passed in disregard of express terms of the contract would be arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction. 29. Award passed in disregard of express terms of the contract would be arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction. 29. In the last cited case by the appellants Oil and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Wig Brothers Builders and Engineers Private Limited, (2010) 13 SCC 377 , it has been held that where terms of contract provided that in case of any delay attributable to employer for whatever reason contractor will only be entitled to extension of time for completion of work but will not be entitled to any compensation or damages. 30. I have also gone through the rulings cited on behalf of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent. 31. In the case of B.V. Radha Krishan vs. Sponge Iron India Ltd. AIR 1997 SC 1324 , the dispute between the parties was in respect of transportation contract and it has been held by the Apex Court that High Court cannot examine matter as a regular appellate court and cannot substitute its own view in place of Arbitrators view. 32. In the another case of Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, 1989 (1) ALR 306, same view has been taken that the court cannot re-examine the merits of the award with reference to materials produced before the arbitrator. It cannot sit in appeal over the views of the arbitrator. Its jurisdiction is limited to grounds available under the Arbitrator Act. 33. In the cited case of M/s. Hidustan Tea Co. vs. M/s. K. Sashikant & Co. and Another, AIR 1987 SC 81 , this view was taken that the award cannot be set aside on ground that arbitrator reached wrong conclusion or he failed to appreciate facts. Under the law, the arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the dispute between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts. It was further held that where the award which was a reasoned one was challenged on the ground that the arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act, it was held that the same could not be set aside. 34. It was further held that where the award which was a reasoned one was challenged on the ground that the arbitrator acted contrary to the provisions of Section 70 of the Contract Act, it was held that the same could not be set aside. 34. In the case of Bhagwati Olxygen Ltd. vs. Hindustan Copper Limited, 2005 (1) ALR 608 (SC) 608, in para 25 it has been held by the Apex Court the Court while exercising the power under Section 30, cannot reappreciate the evidence or examine correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the arbitrator. The jurisdiction is not appellate in nature and an award passed by an arbitrator cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous. It is not open to the court to interfere with the award merely because in the opinion of the court, other view is equally possible. It is only when the Court is satisfied that the arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings or the award had been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid that the court may set aside such award. 35. In the other cited case of Ghulam Mohammad Dar vs. State of J & K and Others, 2008 (70) ALR 478, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that since the final bill of the claimant was pending and the respondent was liable to discharge and pay the final bill, therefore, the claimant was entitled for simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. 36. In the last cited case of B.V. Radha Krishna vs. Sponge Iron India Limited, AIR 1997 SC 1324 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has been held that the High Court cannot substitute its own view in place of arbitrator’s view and cannot examine matter as a regular appellate court. On the interest part it has been observed by the Apex Court that interest has to be awarded from the date mentioned in notice and not from the date of notice calling upon the company to settle bills ad claims raised by him. 37. In the case at hand as per special condition No. 1.04 of the contract agreement provision was there for site investigation and exploration. 37. In the case at hand as per special condition No. 1.04 of the contract agreement provision was there for site investigation and exploration. This condition No. 1.04 is reproduced as under:- ‘1.04: Site investigation and exploration: “It shall be understood that the contractor has satisfied himself as to the nature and location of work, the general and local conditions, including those having bearing upon transportation disposal, handing and storages of materials, availability of labour, water etc. or similar physical conditions at the site, the configuration and conditions of grounds, the character, quality and quantity of the surface and the sub-surface materials to be encountered, the character of equipment and facilities needed in the beginning and during execution of the work and all other matter which can in any way affect the work or the cost thereof under this contract. Any default or failure by the contractor to acquaint himself with all the information concerning these conditions will not relieve from responsibility for the execution of this contract.” 38. Thus, under the above condition the contractor himself had to be satisfied with the physical conditions of the site, configuration and conditions of grounds, character and quality and quantity. The claim of the contractor before the Arbitrator is that the date of tender was 29-9-1984 at 3 p.m. and the tender papers were prepared by the department one day before and it was impossible for the contractor to make spot inspection by making drill holes and to see what is the nature of site and only by excavation of ditch and earth was tested and contractor could not anticipate the excavation of hard rock. This explanation on behalf of the contractor cannot be accepted. When the contract was being awarded to the contractor, and specific condition was there that the contractor have to satisfied himself before start of the work about the physical conditions and surface of grounds and quality and quantity of the ground, he could have first satisfied himself and thereafter should have start the work. 39. In this respect clause 7.06 is important, which is quoted below:- “7.06. The contractor shall do all excavations of whatsoever substance dry or wet accoutered upto the bed level or power channel. 39. In this respect clause 7.06 is important, which is quoted below:- “7.06. The contractor shall do all excavations of whatsoever substance dry or wet accoutered upto the bed level or power channel. It may however, be stated that the earth work in excavation comprises generally of sand, rock, clay, chenks, conglomerate, single, boulder and bajri sand and or any combination of soil dry or wet or saturated formation enumerated above. The tendered rate shall include all material met with during excavation of channel section including clay shale, conglomerate and rock etc and claim on account of nature of strata or on account of difficulties met with the excavation and disposal of the excavation materials shall be entertained.” 40. The State/appellant has raised objection before the arbitrator that the contractor after being satisfied the quality and quantity of outer and inner surface of the surface had given his rates and in this regard the contractor had written letter PCC/84-85/120 dated 16-11-1984 which was handed over to the department after about two months of submission of tender. It was further pleaded by the State in the objection before the Arbitrator that the date of start of work given to the contractor was 5.1.1985 and before 2.8.1988 the contractor never claimed extra quantity of work carried out by him. The contractor had completed the work on 29-9-1988 and there was no justification to pay the contractor for extra work. It was further pleaded that the rates were invited in Schedule-C for earth work in all type of rock and all type of soil and the contractor had to do excavation work of all types of rock. It was further pleaded before the Arbitrator that at the time of time extension the contractor had also annexed the no-claim certificate and the time was extended in accordance to the terms of contract agreement. 41. Thus from perusal clause 7-06 and schedule-C rates invited and supplied by the contractor it is quite obvious that all types of rock was included in the excavation work. The date of start of work was 5.1.1985 and about three years seven months the contractor never raised this issue that he had to excavate the hard rock. The rates were given by him for excavation of all types of rocks. Further at the time of moving application for time extension no-claim certificate was annexed by the contractor. The date of start of work was 5.1.1985 and about three years seven months the contractor never raised this issue that he had to excavate the hard rock. The rates were given by him for excavation of all types of rocks. Further at the time of moving application for time extension no-claim certificate was annexed by the contractor. Had there been no provision of cutting and excavation of hard rock in the contract agreement, and the contractor was not acquainted with the surface of the ground, he would have certainly raised his objection at the early stage of the work, but the contractor remained silent in this regard and now when the work has been completed this issue has been agitated. The learned Arbitrator has not considered the above aspects of the matter and has simply believed the bald assertion of the contractor that in excavation there was hard rock and the contractor is entitled to get the damages at increased rate than the rates given by the contractor to the department. Thus, the Arbitrator has misconducted himself by not considering the specific objection raised by the appellants and ignored the specific terms of clause 7.06 as well as Schedule-C. In Schedule –C items no. 1 relates to earth work in excavation in all type of rock and all type of soil including Bajri and boulders etc. and all lifts and leads and its disposal from K. 10.350 to Km. 10.550 of the contract site and the rate Rs. 24.79 per cubic meter was revised as per offer dated 16.11.1984. Therefore, the Arbitrator has travelled beyond the agreed terms of the agreement as the contractor had to do excavation work of all types of rocks at Rs. 24.79 per cubic meter. The learned Arbitrator also drew presumption that that the contractor could not have stopped the work as per condition No. 1.49 and the issue of hard rock was brought in the notice of Engineer in charge but he was given only assurance. The presumption of the arbitrator is also against the terms of clause 1.49. Clause 1.49 comes in to play when the dispute is referred to arbitration and the work shall continue during the arbitration proceedings and no payment due to the contractor within the provision of the contract shall be with-held on account of arbitration proceeding. The presumption of the arbitrator is also against the terms of clause 1.49. Clause 1.49 comes in to play when the dispute is referred to arbitration and the work shall continue during the arbitration proceedings and no payment due to the contractor within the provision of the contract shall be with-held on account of arbitration proceeding. In the instant case the dispute was referred to the arbitrator after the completion of the work and presumption under clause 1.49 cannot be drawn that the contractor would have continued the work under this clause. 42. On the other hand it is the specific case of the appellants that all types of rocks were included in the excavation work, the contractor had after being satisfied with the surface had submitted his rates of excavation, the contractor had not made any complaint about the excavation of hard rock as an extra work upto 2-8-1988 and at the time of extension of time also no claim certificate was filed and the time was extended for completing the work. 43. Clause-16 of the conditions of contract gives power to the Engineer in charge to make alterations to the original specification drawing, designs and instructions as may appears to him to be necessary. Clause-16 is reproduced as under:- “The Engineer-in-charge shall have power to make such alterations to the original specification drawing, designs and instructions as may appears to him to be necessary or advise during the progress of the work, and the contractor shall be bound to carry out the work in accordance with any instructions which may be given to him in writing signed by the Engineer-in-charge, and such alterations shall not invalidate the contract and any additional work which the contractor may be so directed to do shall be carried to do the main work and at the main, and at the same rates as are specified in the tender for the main work. The time for the completion of the work shall be extended in the proportion that the additional work bear to the original contract work and the certificate of the Engineer-in-charge shall be conclusive as to such proportions. The time for the completion of the work shall be extended in the proportion that the additional work bear to the original contract work and the certificate of the Engineer-in-charge shall be conclusive as to such proportions. If the additional work includes any item for which no rates is specified hereunder, then the contractor shall carry the work at the rate entered in the schedule or rate of the District but if the Schedule does not contain any rate for such work then the contractor shall not begin such work until rate in respect of such work has been settled by mutual agreement between him and the Engineer-in-charge with the approval of the officer accepting the contract and if they are unable to agree upon a rate within two weeks from the date when the contractor received the order the Engineer-in-charge may by a notice in writing cancel the order for such work and carry it out in such manner as he may think best, in the event of a dispute, the decision of the Superintending Engineer shall be final and binding on the contractor.” 44. Thus from above condition it is quite clear that if the contractor had to do extra work, he would have raised the issue before the Engineer-in-charge and on the written instruction the extra work would have been done at the rates given in the contract and if the additional work includes any item for which no rate is specified then the contractor shall carry the work at the rate entered in the schedule of rate of the District but if the schedule does not contain any rate for such work then the contractor shall not begin such work until rate in respect of such work has been settled. No such claim was raised and no rate was settled between the parties for the so-called extra work of hard rock. Had there been any such extra work the contractor was bound to raise the issue before the Engineer-in-charge and he should have stopped the further work before settling the dispute of rates. Thus the claim of the contractor is also barred by the terms of clause 16. 45. Had there been any such extra work the contractor was bound to raise the issue before the Engineer-in-charge and he should have stopped the further work before settling the dispute of rates. Thus the claim of the contractor is also barred by the terms of clause 16. 45. The learned Arbitrator in its finding also observed that Sri Baleshwar Dass Officer of the Department had there was no hope of hard rock strata from before and on this ground the time was extended whereas clause 16 of the conditions of contract specifically provided that the time for the completion of the work shall be extended in proportion that the additional work bear to the original contract work and the certificate of the Engineer-in-charge shall be conclusive as to such proportions. If the additional work includes any item for which no rates is specified hereunder, then the contractor shall carry the work at the rate entered in the schedule of rate of the District but if the Schedule does not contain any rate for such work then the contractor shall not begin such work until rate in respect of such work has been settled by mutual agreement between him and the Engineer-in-charge with the approval of the officer accepting the contract and if they are unable to agree upon a rate within two weeks from the date when the contractor received the order, the Engineer-in-charge may by a notice in writing cancel the order for such work and carry it out in such manner as he may think best in the event of a dispute, the decision of the S.E. shall be final and binding on the contractor. In the instant case it is the stand of the appellants that the date of start of work was 5.1.1985 and the date of completion of work was 29-9-1988 and upto 2.8.1988 the contractor never made any complaint about the execution of the work and he was accepting the payment of the work done by him without any protest. In the instant case it is the stand of the appellants that the date of start of work was 5.1.1985 and the date of completion of work was 29-9-1988 and upto 2.8.1988 the contractor never made any complaint about the execution of the work and he was accepting the payment of the work done by him without any protest. It was the bounden duty of the contractor to inform the Engineer-in-charge if there had been hard rock in the excavation work at the early stage so that he might have a right to get the increased rate as per the provision of condition No.16, but unfortunately he remained silent through the execution of the work and only about eight months earlier to the date of completion of work he had informed the Engineer-in-charge about the hard rock. Any-how the case of the department is that as per clause 7.06 of contract agreement and the Schedule-C the excavation work included excavation of all types of rock and it cannot be differentiated that hard rock does not in the category of all types of rocks. 46. On behalf of appellants this objection was also raised before the Arbitrator that the contractor had never informed the Engineer-in-charge about the extra work before 1-8-1988 whereas as per special condition Nos. 1.45 and 1.46 of the contract he was obliged to do so. Condition Nos. 1.45 and 1.46 are quoted below:- “1.45 If the contractor considers any record on ruling of the Engineer-in-charge or of his representative in respect of any of the provisions of this contract to be unfair or considers any work demanded of him by the Engineer-in-charge to be out side the requirement of the contract, he shall immediately upon such work being demanded, ask in writing for written instructions, or decisions, on receipt where of he shall proceed without delay to confirm to be record of ruling or to perform the work demanded and within 15 days after date of receipt of the written instructions or decisions by may file a written protest upto the Engineer-in-charge stating clearly and in detail the basis of his objection. Except for such protest of objections as are made on record in the manner herein specified and within the time limit stated, ruling, instructions or decisions of the Engineer-in-charge shall be conclusive and binding on the contractor, instructions and/or decisions of the Engineer-in-charge contained in letters transmitting drawings to the contractor shall be considered as written in instructions or decision, subject to protest or objection as herein provided.” “1.46. If the contractor is dissatisfied with final decision of the Engineer-in-charge on the protest or objection made by the contractor in accordance with the procedure prescribed in clause 1.45 the contractor may within twenty eight (28) days after receiving notice of such decision give notice in writing to the Engineer-in-charge requiring that the matter be submitted to arbitration and furnishing detailed particulars and furnishing of the dispute or difference specifying clearly the point at issue. If the contractor fails to give such notice within the period of 28 days as stipulated above the decision of the Engineer-in-charge shall be conclusive and binding on contractor.” 47. The contractor had not given any information about the extra work to the Engineer-in-charge and he continued to execute the work as per the conditions of contract and when the work was at its fag-end then the contractor agitated the matter with ulterior motive to raise the dispute to obtain the benefit of the issue of ‘hard rock’. Thus, in view of clear provision in condition Nos. 1.45 and 1.46, the claim was clearly barred in view of the said clause of contract. 48. It is also to be noted here that there is no dispute of quantity of work. It is undisputed that the contractor has executed the excavation work of 2,33,000 cubic meters, but he has claimed the higher rate of the whole excavation work than the rates supplied by the contractor and mutually agreed between the parties. The learned Arbitrator has not recorded any reason as to how he has fixed the increased rate of Rs. 46.76. It appears that the contractor in his claim mentioned above and the same was allowed by the arbitrator and this awarding of rate of Rs. The learned Arbitrator has not recorded any reason as to how he has fixed the increased rate of Rs. 46.76. It appears that the contractor in his claim mentioned above and the same was allowed by the arbitrator and this awarding of rate of Rs. 46.76 is also against the conditions No. 16 of the contract agreement, according to which if there is no rate specified in the contract for any item then the rate of the District would apply and if the Schedule does not contain any rate for such work then the contactor shall not begin such work until rate in respect of such work has been settled by mutual agreement between him and the Engineer-in-charge with the approval of the Officer accepting the contract. 49. The learned Arbitrator also misinterpreted this aspect of the matter that the time was extended to the contractor to complete the contract work and only when no claim certificate was furnished by the contractor. In my view the learned Arbitrator has allowed claim No.1 beyond the scope of the agreement entered into by the parties and such award cannot be sustained. Further the arbitrator has to considered the conditions of clause 1.45, clause 1.46, clause-16 and 1.04. The arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction by giving the award beyond the terms of the contract and the same is liable to be set aside. The arbitrator has ignored the fundamental terms of agreement between the parties. The contractor should have submitted in writing his claim regarding excavation work if any to the Engineer-in-charge within the stipulated period as mentioned in the contract agreement and the claims raised subsequently are liable to be rejected and the view taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of International Construction Company vs. State of A.P. and others (Supra) will prevail. It is further to mentioned here that the question regarding extra-cost was a general question and not a specific legal question and the decision of the arbitrator was not a final one and in view of specific clauses referred in the earlier part of this judgment, the contractor was not legally entitled to claim for extra-cost. It is further to mentioned here that the question regarding extra-cost was a general question and not a specific legal question and the decision of the arbitrator was not a final one and in view of specific clauses referred in the earlier part of this judgment, the contractor was not legally entitled to claim for extra-cost. When the work was at its fag-end and the contractor had accepted all payments of the work as per agreed rates of contract agreement without protest it was not open to the contractor to claim extra cost by saying that pure hard rock was excavated by him, whereas all types of rocks were included in the contract work. The award being contrary to the terms of the contract, interference can be made as there is an error apparent on the face of the award. In my view the case laws cited above on behalf of the appellants are fully applicable to the facts of the case at hand. 50. So far as the case-laws cited on behalf of the respect are concerned, it has been held that the High Court cannot examine matter as a regular appellate court and cannot substitute its own view in place of Arbitrator’s view. It has also been held that the court cannot re-examine the merits of the award with reference to materials produced before the arbitrator and it cannot sit in appeal over the view of the arbitrator and the High Court has limited jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act. It has also held that the award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts. The ratio of the cases cited on behalf of the respondents do not apply to the facts of present case. This court has not appreciated the facts of the case, but has considered the specified terms of the contract agreement and the award being contrary to the terms of contract, therefore, it requires interference as there is an error apparent on the face of the award. The view taken by the learned Arbitrator cannot be a conceivable and possible view and the only view which is conceivable and possible is that the excavation of 2,33,000 cubic meter of excavation was included all types of rocks that includes hard rock also. The view taken by the learned Arbitrator cannot be a conceivable and possible view and the only view which is conceivable and possible is that the excavation of 2,33,000 cubic meter of excavation was included all types of rocks that includes hard rock also. Rock is rock whether it is soft, hard or of any type and the payment of which has been made to the contractor as per agreed rates in Schedule-C. The learned Civil Judge has also committed a manifest error of law by affirming same findings of arbitrator and in holding that the excavation of hard rock is an extra work against the specific terms of contract as mentioned and discussed above in the earlier part of the judgment. 51. Thus, in view of above discussion, this court is of the considered view that the claim No.1, has wrongly been allowed by the arbitrator. 52. The objections filed by the appellant U/S 30/33 of the Act are allowed. 53. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award dated 19-6-1990 given by the Arbitrator is set aside. 54. The judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun making the impugned award as rule of the court also stands set aside. No order as to costs.