JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The petitioner, Himachal Pradesh Road Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "HPRIDC"), maintained the present petition under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the Act") for fixing reasonable fee of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. Shorn of key details, HPRIDC and M/s C & C Construction Limited (respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as "the Construction Company") entered into a contract whereby work of widening and strengthening of Una-Barsar-Bhota-Bhamala-Kalkhar-Ner Chowk road Section Una-Bangana-Barsar from Km 0+000 to Km 46+000 Package No. SRP/RIDC/HP/2/ICB was given to the Construction Company. A covenant was duly executed, which contained various clauses including Clause 20.6 which provides as under: "20 Claims, Disputes and Arbitration 20.6 Arbitration Substitute sub paragraph (a) with the following: (a) A dispute with an Indian Contractor shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendment thereof. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of 3 (three) Arbitrators one each to be appointed by the Employer and the Contrator. The third Arbitratory shall be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the parties and shall act as Presiding Arbitrator in case of failure of the two Arbitrators, appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the arbitrator appointed in the last the Presiding arbitrator shall be appointed by the Appointing Authority as specified in the Bid Date Sheet. For the purposes of this Sub-Clause, the term "Indian Contractor" means a Contractor who is registered in India and is a juridical person created under Indian law as well as a joint venture between such a Contractor and a Foreign Contractor. In case of a dispute with a Foreign Contractor, the dispute shall be finally settled in accordance with the provisions of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. If agreed to by both the parties the disputes shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendment thereof. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of three Arbitrators. The third Arbitrator shall be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the parties, and shall act as Presiding Arbitrator. If agreed to by both the parties the disputes shall be settled in accordance with the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory amendment thereof. The arbitral tribunal shall consist of three Arbitrators. The third Arbitrator shall be chosen by the two Arbitrators so appointed by the parties, and shall act as Presiding Arbitrator. In case of failure of the two Arbitrators appointed by the parties to reach upon a consensus within a period of 30 days from the appointment of the Arbitrator appointed in the last, the Presiding Arbitrator shall be appointed by the Authority specified in the Bid Date Sheet. For the purposes of this Sub Clause, the term "Foreign Contractor" means a Contractor who is not registered in India and is not a juridical person created under Indian Law." Subsequently, a dispute arose and the Construction Company, vide letter dated 05.12.2013, sought reference of the dispute to arbitration and in the said letter respondent No. 3 was named as nominee from the side of the Construction Company. In response, HPRIDC, vide letter dated 27.12.2013, called the Construction Company for securing the acceptance of respondent No. 3 qua fee structure notified by the petitioner. The petitioner (HPRIDC) further averred that prior to invoking the arbitration agreement, respondent No. 1-Company notified the fee structure, vide letter dated 18.03.2013. The Construction Company, vide its email dated 15.01.2014 forwarded acceptance letter, dated 08.01.2014, sent by respondent No. 3 to the Technical Director of the Company. Resultantly, the petitioner, vide its letter dated 14.01.2014, nominated respondent No. 4 as its nominee to Arbitral Tribunal. The petitioner further averred that through letter dated 21.01.2014, respondent No. 4 was apprised qua the acceptance of the fee structure, as proposed by respondent No. 3. In fact, the fee of the members of the Tribunal was fixed @ Rs. 15,000/- per day, subject to maximum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and boarding and lodging expenses @ Rs. 7,000/- per day for hearing and Rs. 3,500/- per day for days other than the meeting days. The travelling expenses were also agreed on actual Economy Class (by air), First Class AC by train and actual AC car charges by road. 3. The petitioner contended that both nominated arbitrators appointed respondent No. 2 as the Presiding Arbitrator and hearing was fixed on 08.03.2014. Vide order dated 25.02.2016, the Arbitral Tribunal was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 3. The petitioner contended that both nominated arbitrators appointed respondent No. 2 as the Presiding Arbitrator and hearing was fixed on 08.03.2014. Vide order dated 25.02.2016, the Arbitral Tribunal was directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- each under Section 38 of the Act. On the subsequent meeting of the Arbitral Tribunal, i.e., 30.04.2016 the contention qua agreement for fee was raised before the Tribunal, but the same was rejected. On 04.12.2016 the Arbitral Tribunal fixed fee of Rs. 60,000/- per Arbitrator per hearing and the parties were directed to pay the said fee right from the commencement of the proceedings, after adjusting the amounts already paid. The petitioner further contended that the Tribunal directed that boarding, lodging and travelling expenses of respondent No. 3 would be on actual basis and respondents No. 2 and 4 would be paid Rs. 15,000/- per day, so the Tribunal excessively raised these charges too. Thereafter, vide order dated 10.03.2017, the Tribunal directed that hearing will only be for three hours and separate payment will be charged for pre-lunch and post-lunch sessions. As per the petitioner, till date the fee payable to respondents No. 2 to 4 cumulatively is Rs. 2,25,000/-, even if all hearings are to be paid at the agreed rates and though as per the approved structure the fee per arbitrator is fixed at Rs. 2,25,000/- and against such fee respondents No. 2 to 4 are claiming fee of Rs. 12,00,000/-. It is contended that respondents No. 2 to 4 are also claiming boarding, lodging and travelling expenses excessively. In the above backdrop, the petitioner is praying that reasonable fee and expenses may be paid to respondents No. 2 to 4 out of the amount already deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of this Court and the remaining amount be refunded to it. 4. Notice of motion was served upon the respondents, however, only respondent No. 1 chosen to contest the present matter, though, respondent No. 1 also did not file any reply to the present petition. Respondents No. 2 to 4 did not appear before this Court. 5. Noticeably, respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the present petition, approached the learned Tribunal with a prayer to reconsider the order directing payment of fee, but the prayer was rejected. 6. On behalf of HPRIDC (petitioner), the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Respondents No. 2 to 4 did not appear before this Court. 5. Noticeably, respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the present petition, approached the learned Tribunal with a prayer to reconsider the order directing payment of fee, but the prayer was rejected. 6. On behalf of HPRIDC (petitioner), the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. J.S. Bhogal, argued that the fee cannot be claimed more than what is fixed and agreed, as the fee was accepted by the Arbitrators. He has further argued that the Arbitrators cannot claim more fee than as agreed between the parties, as the parties have appointed Arbitrators. He has argued that as far as umpire is concerned, though the letter, issued by the petitioner and accepted by respondent No. 1, is silent with regard to the fee, but even then also the concept of reasonable fee applies. Conversely, Mr. Naveen Kumar, learned Counsel, appearing for contesting respondent No. 1, has argued that the Arbitrators can charge the fee as reasonable fee and the letter issued by the petitioner is not binding upon them. He has further argued that Arbitrators are entitled for a reasonable fee and the fee, i.e., 60,000/- per Arbitrator per hearing cannot be said to be unreasonable. He has argued that respondent No. 1 has no objection paying higher fee. 7. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel has argued that fee cannot be unreasonable and even taking into consideration the salary of a High Court Judge, the fee, as fixed, vide letter dated 08.01.2014, i.e., Rs. 15,000/- per appearance, is very reasonable fee. 8. I have carefully considered the contentions of the contesting parties and perused the materials on record. The issues which fall for consideration in the present matter are that, are the Arbitrators charging unreasonable fee and is fee payable by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 as per letter dated 08.01.2014? 9. At the very outset, it would be gainful to highlight letter dated 08.01.2014, whereby respondent No. 3 (nominated arbitrator) conveyed his acceptance for fee and other expenses, as proposed and notified by HPRIDC (petitioner), to Shri R.M. Aggarwal, the then Director Technical of respondent No. 1-Company. The above letter, in extenso, extracted hereunder: "............. (respondent No. 3) Dated: 08.01.2014 Sh. At the very outset, it would be gainful to highlight letter dated 08.01.2014, whereby respondent No. 3 (nominated arbitrator) conveyed his acceptance for fee and other expenses, as proposed and notified by HPRIDC (petitioner), to Shri R.M. Aggarwal, the then Director Technical of respondent No. 1-Company. The above letter, in extenso, extracted hereunder: "............. (respondent No. 3) Dated: 08.01.2014 Sh. R.M. Aggarwal, Director Tehnical C & C Constructions Limited Plot No. 70, Institutional Sector-32 Gurgaon 122001 Sub: Widening and Strengthening of Una Barsar Bhota Bhamla Kalkhar Ner Chowk Road Section Una Bangarna Barsar From Km 0+000 to Km 45+000 (Contact No. PWSRP/ RIDC/HP/2/ICB-2) Acceptance of Arbitration Fees reg Ref: (i) Contractor's letter No. Nil dated 05.12.2013 (ii) Contractors' letter No. C&C/HPRIDC/HP-2/118 dt. 05.12.2013 (iii) Employers letter No. HPRIDC/SRP/EE-(CM)/ICB-2 Arbn/ 2012:5349-50 dated 27.12.2013 Apropos your letter on the above-referred subject, I, as nominee Arbitrator hereby give my acceptance of Arbitration Fees and other expenses as notified by the HPRIDC but subject to the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in this regard as the Arbitral Tribunal is yet to be constituted in terms of the Contract between the parties with the Presiding Arbitrator to be appointed by the two nominee Arbitrators. (respondent No. 3)" 10. Noticeably, through Annexure P-4, HPRIDC conveyed fee and other expenses of members of the Arbitral Tribunal. Annexure P-4 in extenso extracted as under: "Himachal Pradesh Road and Center Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited State Roads Projects, Nirman Bhawan, Nigam Vihar, Shimla-171002 Fax: 0177-2620663, Tel : 0177-2620663/2627602 Time Bound HPRIDC/SRP/EE (CM)-ICB/NCB Contracts (Arbn.)/2010-7942-52 Dated 18-3-2013 1. M/s Longjian Road & Bridge Company Ltd., Lower Arniyala, War No. 1, Friends Colony, Una (HP)-174303. 2. M/s C&C Construction Private Limited, Site Office : Una-Barsar Road Project, Village & P.O. Samoor Kalan, District Una HP. 3. M/s C&C Construction Private Limited, Site Office : Barsar-Jahu Road Project, Village & P.O. Mundkhar, District Hamirpur, H.P. 4. M/s ANS Construction Limited, Site Office : Opposite Khadi Gram Udyog, Main Bazar, V&PO Jahu, District Hamirpur, HP 176048. 5. M/s Vlecha-Dilip (JV) Dilip Buildcom Pvt. Ltd., E-5/99, Arera Colony, Bhopal-462016 (M.P.) 6. M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office : 124, Ground Floor, World trade Centre, Babar Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110011. Subject: Fee of Arbitrators in case of Civil Engineering Construction Contractors/Supervision Consultant. Enclosed herewith is the copy of the Circular No. HPRIDC/SRP/EE (T&D)-ICB-8/Arbit. 5. M/s Vlecha-Dilip (JV) Dilip Buildcom Pvt. Ltd., E-5/99, Arera Colony, Bhopal-462016 (M.P.) 6. M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd., Regd. Office : 124, Ground Floor, World trade Centre, Babar Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110011. Subject: Fee of Arbitrators in case of Civil Engineering Construction Contractors/Supervision Consultant. Enclosed herewith is the copy of the Circular No. HPRIDC/SRP/EE (T&D)-ICB-8/Arbit. Despite (Vol.1)/2012-13-7639 Dated 6.3.2013 regarding the notification of fees and other expenses to the Arbitration Tribunal members, approved by the HPRIDC for taking further necessary action. It is requested to accord your consent in the matter accordingly in consultation with the HPRIDC. Encl: As above (2 pages) Sd/- Chief Engineer-cum-Project Director State Roads Project, HPRIDC Nirman Bhawan, Shimla-2 Copy alongwith encloses as above to : (i) The Executive Engineer (CMU), State Roads Project, HPRIDC, Dharamshala, Hamirpur & Una. (ii) Sh. Jatinder S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate, Office : 10, DR Complex, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla-171 001. (iii) The Louis Berger Group Inc. USA in a/w Louis Berger Consulting Pvt. Ltd. India, D-7, Lane-1, Sector, New Shimla (HP)-171009, India. Encl: As above (2 pages) Sd/- Chief Engineer-cum-Project Director State Roads Project, HPRIDC Nirman Bhawan, Shimla-2" 11. A bare perusal of the above cited documents shows that the HPRIDC (petitioner) issued a circular to all the contractors qua fee of the arbitrator. Fee of the arbitrator was fixed at Rs. 15,000/- per day, subject to maximum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and further subject to publishing the award within twelve months. The Construction Company (Respondent No. 1) nominated arbitrator, and vide letter dated 08.01.2014, respondent No. 3 (nominated arbitrator from the side of the Construction Company) gave acceptance for arbitration fee and other expenses, as notified by the petitioner. In these circumstances, this Court finds that once the arbitrator accepted the fee and other expenses, then arbitrator is bound by the acceptance and the fee and other expenses proposed by the petitioner. This Court also considered the objection of learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the acceptance was conditional and cannot be taken as acceptance. The acceptance, as given, was in the first line that the arbitration fee and other expenses, as notified by the petitioner, are acceptable. The agreement concludes in the first line whereby the nominated arbitrator of the Construction Company gave his consent. Meaning thereby arbitrator was ready and willing to perform the duties and the fee/expenses, as proposed by the petitioner, was accepted. 12. The agreement concludes in the first line whereby the nominated arbitrator of the Construction Company gave his consent. Meaning thereby arbitrator was ready and willing to perform the duties and the fee/expenses, as proposed by the petitioner, was accepted. 12. As far as other arbitrator appointed by the petitioner is concerned, no objection has been raised that this fee is not acceptable to other arbitrators. Arbitrators were made parties before this Court, but they did not choose to appear and the case of the arbitrator appointed by respondent No. 1 was pleaded by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the premise that in case the arbitration is delayed, respondent No. 1 shall suffer, so the fee, as claimed by the arbitrators is just and reasonable. 13. I find no merits in the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, as the fee is to be shared by the petitioner also and the fee, as fixed by the petitioner, vide its letter was also accepted by the arbitrator. The arbitrator cannot claim fee more than proposed in the circular. As far as the fee of the umpire is concerned, neither anything was argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner nor same is required to be adjudicated upon. However, the arbitrators appointed by the parties are bound by the fee and other expenses, as prescribed through circular dated 18.03.2013. 14. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to deposit its share of fee of arbitrators, as notified by it in its circular dated 18.03.2013 and in case fee is already deposited on higher side, balance amount be refunded to the petitioner (HPRIDC). With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.