JUDGMENT An arbitral award was passed in favour of the petitioner by a sole Arbitrator on 31 July 2002. In a proceeding initiated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the U P Jal Nigam against whom the award was made, the District Judge, Bhadohi set aside the arbitral award on 15 January 2009. The petitioner filed a first appeal from order which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 27 November 2015 by which, the judgment of the District Judge dated 15 January 2009 was set aside, the objections filed by the Jal Nigam were rejected and the award was made Rule of the Court. 2. Consequent upon the judgment of the Division Bench, the application filed by the Jal Nigam to set aside the award under Section 34 stands refused. Consequently, the award is capable of being enforced under Section 36 in the same manner as if it is a decree of the Court. That being the position, the institution of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus to the Jal Nigam to make payment under the award, is misconceived. 3. The only ground which has been urged in support of the petition is that the petitioner has been contesting the proceedings since 2002 and having due regard to the condition of health, a mandamus should be issued. 4. The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contain an elaborate mechanism under which an award is enforceable as if it is a decree of the Court once the application, as in the present case, for setting aside the award stands refused. Hence, the remedy of the petitioner would be to seek execution of the award in accordance with law. 5. Leaving it open to the petitioner to do so, we dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.