JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Judgment dated 1st July, 2013 passed by learned Single Judge in arbitration case No. 7 of 2008 is under challenge in the present appeal. 2. The facts giving rise for filing this appeal in a nutshell are that Shri O.P.Chauhan, Arbitrator-cum-Superintending Engineer, IPH Circle, Sunder Nagar was appointed as Arbitrator vide order dated 16.11.2006 by this Court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties on both sides. He has made the award partly in favour of the appellant-Contractor and against the respondent-State. 3. The respondent-State had challenged the award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation (Unamended) Act, 1996 on several grounds. Learned Single Judge has quashed the award by placing reliance on judgment of this Court in Arbitration Appeal No. 4 of 2005 titled Parmod Sood vs. State of H.P. and others, in which on the ground of non-disclosure of the interest of Arbitrator, so appointed, the award ultimately passed was held to be violative of the provisions contained under Section 12 of the Act. 4. We have gone through the objections so raised to the award. No such objection however has been raised by the respondent-State in the petition and this aspect of the matter has been agitated for the first time during the course of arguments. 5. We have perused the record, which reveals that factum of Shri O.P.Chauhan as the Engineer in-charge of the work came to the notice of both the parties on the very first date of hearing i.e. 4.4.2007 and irrespective of it, they raised no objections to his appointment as Arbitrator and rather consented for his appointment as an Arbitrator, which is so recorded in the proceedings held on 4.4.2007. The Arbitrator so appointed by the Court as such proceeded further in arbitration proceedings. In this view of the matter, no such objection could have been raised by the respondent-State at later stage that too at the time of final hearing. Otherwise also, the arbitral proceedings pertain to the period where unamended Act was in force. The Arbitrator under Sub-section 1 of Section 12 of the Act was required to disclose in writing any circumstance likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, leaving thereby the parties either to agree or disagree for his appointment as Arbitrator. The Arbitrator under Sub-section 1 of Section 12 of the Act was required to disclose in writing any circumstance likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his independence or impartiality, leaving thereby the parties either to agree or disagree for his appointment as Arbitrator. In the case in hand, as we have noticed hereinabove that during the course of first hearing the parties have not only agreed his appointment as Arbitrator but also consented for his continuous as such to proceed further in arbitral proceedings after he disclosed that he was Engineer incharge of the work in question. Therefore, the ground on which the award has been set aside is not available to the respondentState. Perhaps, the Contractor has not brought this fact to the notice of learned Single Judge as according to Mr.Sharma, learned counsel, the record of arbitral proceedings was not available in Court at that time, hence could not be gone into. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to learned Single Judge for disposal in accordance with law and taking into consideration the objections raised by the respondents-State to the impugned award. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.