JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged Annexure O-3, dated 09.04.2018, vide which application filed by the present petitioner before the learned Arbitrator for review of Award dated 18.11.2018, passed by the Arbitrator stands returned to him on the ground that Arbitrator had no power to review the award passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the power of Arbitrator was only limited to the extent correction and interpretation of the award as per the provisions of Section 33 thereof. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:- In a dispute pertaining to Lot No. 02/R/2011(Ani) (B) Rampur, an Award has been passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Director (South), HPSIDC Ltd. Shimla, dated 18.11.2017. Respondent herein was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator and petitioner was respondent. Vide said Award, claimant therein has been held entitled for an amount of Rs.5,17,419/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim. After the passing of the said award, petitioner filed a Review Petition against said award dated 18.11.2017 with the prayer to recall the award and review the same. This review petition has been returned to the petition by the Arbitrator vide impugned Annexure. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents appended with the petition, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the act of the Arbitrator of returning the review petition filed by the present petitioner. 4. Admittedly, the application filed before the learned Arbitrator by the present petitioner was for review of the award. It is settled law that right to file review is a statutory right. In other words, until and unless such a right is conferred upon a party under the Statute, the Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain a review against its order. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that there is any power of review conferred upon the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the =Act'). 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that there is any power of review conferred upon the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the =Act'). In this view of the matter, when such a power is not conferred upon the Arbitrator, then if any review petition is filed, but natural, he has no other option but to reject the same or to return the same for want of jurisdiction, as has been done in the present case. 6. At this stage, Mr. Chauhan, submits that though nomenclature of the application which was returned vide impugned communication is that of review but the intent of the petitioner was to seek correction of error which was a clerical error which had crept in the impugned award and simply because it was mentioned in the application that review of the award was sought for, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on the said technical ground. 7. Be that as it may, admittedly, as the application filed before the learned Court was for review of the Award, therefore, as I have already held above, there is no infirmity with communication Annexure O-3 vide which said application stands returned for want of jurisdiction. Further, as mutually agreed, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that in case petitioner approaches the learned Arbitrator in terms of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act within two weeks from today, then said application shall be taken on record and decided on merit. This however shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent-Corporation. It is ordered that in case any application is filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 33 of the Act within two weeks from today, then the same shall be accompanied by a Bank Draft amounting to Rs.20,000/- in favour of the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation. It is clarified that in case said application is not accompanied by the Draft qua cost as ordered above, then the same shall not be entertained by the learned Arbitrator and this order shall become inoperative. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.