1. The petitioner approached this Court under Section 11 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for brevity `the Act') with a prayer that the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Jammu and Kashmir Circle, Jammu- non-applicant no.1 may be appointed as an Arbitrator and the dispute raised in the petition be referred to him for arbitration with a direction to dispose of the same and submit the award before this Court. 2. Few facts may first be noticed: 2.1 General Manager, Telecommunication, Srinagar invited tenders on 06.11.1997 for trenching and laying of optical fibre cables from Awantipora to Srinagar. The petitioner submitted his tender documents and after negotiations he was allotted the work and an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 17.04.1998. The work order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.04.1998 itself. As per the agreement the work was to be completed within a period of 65 days. After completion of the work the petitioner submitted his final bill, however, the entire payment as per the claims made by the petitioner was not made to him. The petitioner served a legal notice on the respondents on 19.05.2001 but when no response was shown by the respondents, he approached this Court with a payer for appointing the respondent no.1 as Arbitrator and to submit his award before this Court. 3. It is obvious that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement dated 17.04.1998 duly executed between the parties. In that regard clause 23 of the agreement is relevant and the same is extracted below in extenso:- "23.0. 3. It is obvious that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement dated 17.04.1998 duly executed between the parties. In that regard clause 23 of the agreement is relevant and the same is extracted below in extenso:- "23.0. All disputes, differences and questions arising out of or incidental to this agreement or in any way touching or concerning this agreement or the subject matter thereof of the respective rights, duties or liabilities of the parties under or in respect of this agreement (except the decision whereof is herein before otherwise expressly provided for) shall be referred to the sole arbitration of C.G.M. Telecom J&K Circle Jammu or any person nominated by him or in case his designated is changed or his office is abolished, to the sole arbitration of any person appointed by the officer who for the time being in force is entrusted whether or not in addition to other function with the function of CGM Telecom J&K Circle Jammu by whatsoever designation such officer may be called thereinafter referred to as `the said Officer'. There will be no objection to any such appointment that the person appointed is a Government servant. If however, the arbitrator is a Government servant he will not be one who had an opportunity to deal with the matter to which this agreement relates, or what in the course of his duties as such Government servant he has expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or differences. The arbitrator, while acting as such arbitrator shall not be bound to take any oral or documentary evidence and shall be at liberty to take such evidence and shall be at liberty to take such evidence as he may in his absolute discretion think proper and that he will be at liberty to proceed with the matter and hear parties in the absence of any or some of them or their legal/or technical advisors without being liable for a misconduct within the meaning of the provisions of the Section 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act in this behalf. In the event of such arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office or being any reasons, arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Such persons shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. 23.1. In the event of such arbitrator to whom the matter is originally referred being transferred or vacating his office or being any reasons, arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Such persons shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. 23.1. Subject to aforesaid, the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 and the rules made thereunder and any modification thereof for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. The contractor move for appointment of Arbitrators in case of disputes of payments with the department within 6 months of completion of work and after 6 months such cases will not be entertained by department. 23.2. Upon every and any reference as aforesaid the assessment of costs incidental to the reference and award respectively shall be in the sole discretion of the sole arbitrator. The contractor should address for appointment of Arbitrator to C.G.M.T. J&K Circle, Jammu to avoid delay in settlement of cases." 4. In view of the aforesaid clause incorporated in the agreement dated 17.04.1998 this Court passed an order on 30.07.2003 appointing Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, J&K Circle, Jammu to act as sole arbitrator to decide the dispute which has arisen between the parties or nominate a person to act as such in terms of Clause 23 of the agreement dated 17.04.1998. The award was to be announced within four months from the date of entering into the reference. It would be appropriate to read the order of this Court dated 30.07.2003 and the same is set out below in extenso:- "Neither the costs have been deposited nor have the objections been filed and therefore, in view of order dated 24.05.2003 I have no option but to close the right of filing objections by the respondents. Accordingly it is so ordered. In the application for appointment of arbitrator, it is stated that dispute has arisen in respect of the contract work and as per the agreement dated 17.4.1998 the dispute is to be referred to the sole arbitration of Chief General Manager Telecommunication, J&K/Circle, Jammu or any other person nominated by him. The respondents have not filed any objections to state whether any dispute has arisen between the parties or not and therefore, the averments made in the application are to be accepted as such. The respondents have not filed any objections to state whether any dispute has arisen between the parties or not and therefore, the averments made in the application are to be accepted as such. Accordingly prayer made in the application is allowed. The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, J&K Circle, Jammu is directed either to act as sole arbitrator to decide dispute which has arisen between the parties or to nominate a person to act as an arbitrator in terms of the agreement dated 17.4.1998. The arbitrator shall give award within four months from the date of entering into the reference. The application stands disposed of in the terms indicated above." (Emphasis added) 5. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court the Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, J&K Circle, Jammu nominated one Shri V.K. Chopra, General Manager (Operation and Development) as Arbitrator for determination of the dispute between the parties. Accordingly Shri Chopra has submitted his award dated 21.02.2005 which was announced by him and copies were sent to the petitioner as well as to the respondents as is evident from the foot note of the award. A copy of the award was also filed before this Court. 6. On 10.08.2005 time for filing objections was granted to the parties. Accordingly, one set of objections has been filed by the petitioner- Haji Abdul Gaffar Surma and another set has been filed by the Divisional Engineer-M.K. Jailkhani, office of General Manager Telecommunication Srinagar. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The only argument raised by Mr. N. A. Dandroo, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the award dated 21.02.2005 is against public policy and the policy of law, inasmuch as the principle issue raised by the petitioner has not been addressed and decided. In that regard attention of this Court has been invited to the objections where certain bills raised by the petitioner have been disallowed and that the failure of the Arbitrator to take into consideration the diversion given to the contract work by asking the petitioner to lay patches from Pampore to Barzulla. 8. I have repeatedly asked Mr. Dandroo, learned counsel for the petitioner, that how the public policy or the policy of law is injured by any such thing. In turn he has placed reliance on some observations made by learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Qazi Gh. 8. I have repeatedly asked Mr. Dandroo, learned counsel for the petitioner, that how the public policy or the policy of law is injured by any such thing. In turn he has placed reliance on some observations made by learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Qazi Gh. Nabi v. Qazi Jalal-ud-Din and ors, 2005 (I) SLJ 404 : 2005 (3) JKJ HC-143 and argued that the phrase `public policy of India' used in Section 34 is required to be given a wider meaning. Mr. Dandroo has also placed reliance on para 75 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ltd. v. SAW Pipes Ltd, AIR 2003 SC 2629 . 9. On the contrary Mr. Beigh, learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the award cannot be challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts even in cases where the Arbitrator has acted contrary to Section 70 of the Contract Act. In that regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/S Hindustan Tea Co. v. M/S K. Sashikant and co. and anr, AIR 1987 SC 81 . 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case I am unable to find any material irregularity or such an illegality which may warrant setting aside of the award or any part thereof. 11. Section 34 (2) of the Act illustrates the grounds which may be available for setting aside an arbitral award. There is nothing on record to show that the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration within the meaning of sub-clause (iv) of Section 34 (2) (a). Likewise I have not been able to find out any illegality in the award violating the terms of Section 34 (2) (b) which may be found to be in conflict with the public policy of the State or explanation appended thereto. It would be appropriate to read the aforesaid provisions which are set out below in extenso:- "34. Likewise I have not been able to find out any illegality in the award violating the terms of Section 34 (2) (b) which may be found to be in conflict with the public policy of the State or explanation appended thereto. It would be appropriate to read the aforesaid provisions which are set out below in extenso:- "34. Application for setting aside arbitral award: (1) Recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only if: (a) The party making the application furnishes proof that:- (i)..................... (ii) ..................... (iii) ..................... (iv) the arbitral award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; Provided that, if the decision on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) ................. (b) The Court finds that: (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force; or (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of the State. Explanation:- Without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b), it is hereby declared for the avoidance of any doubt, that an award is in conflict with the public policy of the State if the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 58 or section 64." 12. A casual glance on the aforesaid provision would make it clear that no part of the award would come in conflict either with the public policy of the State or contravenes the provisions of clause 23 of the agreement dated 17.04.1998. No change in the aforesaid agreement has been made by the express consent of the parties or by acquiescence. In any case no such argument has been addressed for this Court to reach a conclusion that the arbitral award suffers from any such legal flaw which may warrant interference of this Court. 13. No change in the aforesaid agreement has been made by the express consent of the parties or by acquiescence. In any case no such argument has been addressed for this Court to reach a conclusion that the arbitral award suffers from any such legal flaw which may warrant interference of this Court. 13. For the reasons aforesaid the Award of the Arbitrator dated 21.02.2005 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, it is made Rule of the Court. Registry to draw decree accordingly.