JUDGMENT C Praveen Kumar, J. - Assailing the order dated 9.3.2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in a petition filed under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed. 2. The respondent-claimant submits that the petitioner - JNTUK, Kakinada, intending to implement and facilitate the Centre of Excellence for e-Resource Development and Deployment Project facilitating e-learning programs, employability skill development and industry interfacing initiatives have floated a tender. The objective of JNTUK was to establish state of the art facility to achieve excellence in the course delivery mechanism, facilitation of single window industry strength programs and providing e-learning courseware for use by faculties and students in their classroom deliveries. In this regard the petitioner - JNTUK floated a request of proposals from prospective private organizations by publishing advertisements in leading national and regional newspapers dated 11.8.2012 under the caption "Establishing Center of Excellence for e Resource Development and Deployment" etc., It is said that partI of request for proposal comprises of invitation to bid (ITB), while part-II relates to instructions to bidders. Part-III relates to terms and conditions, while Part-IV deals with technical and functional specifications. The request was for global tender. The courseware should be made available through multiple delivery possibility i.e., on college LAN and/or through secured access online and/or through a studio setup. The claimant responded to the request for proposal and submitted its tender as stipulated in invitation to ITB dated 11.8.2012 on 27.8.2012. The same was evaluated by a committee constituted by JNTUK on 12.9.2012. The committee, in turn, submitted the claimant's tender outcome to MDC (Monitoring and Development Committee) constituted by Government of Andhra Pradesh and its members being Chairman, Principal Secretary Education, Commissioner Technical Education, JNTUK Vice Chancellor and JNTUK Registrar. The said body suggested for conducting pilot implementation of the same as proof of concept. The officials of the respondent as well as MDC organized pilot project in six college locations on 15th and 16th October, 2012 incurring huge expenditure. The claim of the claimant is that it has developed e-software as per the agreement entered into and the termination of the contract by the respondent illegally made them to approach the High Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. The claim of the claimant is that it has developed e-software as per the agreement entered into and the termination of the contract by the respondent illegally made them to approach the High Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. 3. Pursuant to a dispute between the parties, Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Y.Somayajulu was appointed as an Arbitrator by the High Court on 23.2.2018. The dispute before the Arbitrator was whether JNTUK, Kakinada was right in closing the contract by its letter dated 20.6.2015; not paying an amount of Rs.22,33,31,975/- towards claim No.1 in favour of the claimant; not paying Rs.18,44,99,264/- towards claim No.2; and not paying Rs.2,83,75,164/- towards claim No.3 etc., 4. Pending the arbitration proceedings, the respondent, who is the petitioner herein, made a counter claim contending that cancellation of the agreement, was on account of deficiencies/lapses on the part of the claimant and as per the modifications of the original agreement, the respondent-University is entitled to claim refund of the amount paid with penalties. Evidence was adduced by both sides. It is stated by the petitioner that the evidence adduced on behalf of both parties show that even agreeing to the claimant, the material, which is said to have been produced, is a plagiarized content to some extent. They claim to have a copy of the copyright certificate for the said material. It is further stated that most of the content was copied directly from the various standard textbooks or the material which is available in the public domain and the contribution made by the claimant is of sub-standard quality. As per the terms of the agreement and also as per the UGC Guidelines, 2012 governing the field, the material is not in tune with the guidelines. Since the material was not prepared by the claimant by the persons suggested by JNTUK, it is stated that JNTUK is not liable to make any payment. Apart from that, it is stated that the entire material is not produced either in soft or hard copies for verification. Since the subject matter is concerning various engineering subjects, which is highly technical in nature, it is pleaded that it is desirable to get the material verified by the External Agency consisting of experts in order to verify that the same is in tune with the UGC Guidelines, 2012 and also to verify whether it complied the parameters as per the agreement. Having regard to the above, an application under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was moved to obtain opinion of the expert with regard to the courseware submitted by the claimant. 5. Counter came to be filed by the claimant disputing the averments made alleging that the request made by the JNTUK, Kakinada for production of soft and hardware at the fag end is with the mala fide intention and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is said that the information was made available to the respondents long back in as much as the claimant has already issued user ID and password to the JNTUK and Director, CoEeRD. The e-content was made available in the portal. The allegations that the material placed by the claimant is a plagiarized content to some extent is strictly denied. The claimant reiterated that it had a copyright for the material and the allegation on the part of the JNTUK that the same has been copied or available on the public domain is incorrect. The University wanted e-learning content to be based on syllabus and the contents were developed on those lines. Every care was taken to keep the content free from plagiarized. According to them, there is entire material to show that e-learning content was scrutinized by the experts and all the suggestions given by the experts were incorporated and the same was uploaded on the portal. It is said that Director, CoEeRD, is a party to this entire process and he never brought to the notice of the claimant about any anomalies. Referring to UGC guidelines, it is stated that the claimant adhered to UGC guidelines and also procedures for development of content. It is further submitted that with respect to e-learning, content to be referred to IITs for opinion, if the University intended to do so, it should be at the relevant point of time and not after five years, more so when the entire arbitral proceedings are at the fag end. It is said that all the soft and hardware copies developed by the claimant are SCORAM compliance. It is said that all the soft and hardware copies developed by the claimant are SCORAM compliance. Since the claimant has submitted all the material and which is available for verification and since one such copy is also available on LAN, there is no question to send the same to either Delhi or Kharagpur IITs as stated and that the same is being sought to drag on the matter on one pretext or the other. 6. Considering the rival claims made, the Arbitrator dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 7. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner - JNTUK that since the material requires to be examined by the expert to find out whether the same is in conformity with the guidelines issued by the UGC, it would be just and proper to get the matter be placed before the committee to verify as to whether material is in tune with MoU and addendum. It is also pleaded, the said authority or the body would be in a position to decide whether such material was now available on the domain or whether the claimant himself has made a substantial contribution to the quality of the material and also as to whether the material is of sub-standard quality. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the complainant has prepared the material as per the guidelines and after completion of the entire trial, the matter is posted for argument. At this stage, this application came to be filed only to drag on the proceedings. In fact, he pleads that in the year 2013 itself the material was examined by professionals and they found no fault with it. 9. Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads as under : "26.Expert appointed by arbitral tribunal.- (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may- (a) appoint one or more experts to report to it on specific issues to be determined by the arbitral tribunal, and (b) require a party to give the expert any relevant information or to produce, or to provide access to, any relevant documents, goods or other property for his inspection. (2) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, if a party so requests or if the arbitral tribunal considers it necessary, the expert shall, after delivery of his written or oral report, participate in an oral hearing where the parties have the opportunity to put questions to him and to present expert witnesses in order to testify on the points at issue. (3) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the expert shall, on the request of a party, make available to that party for examination all documents, goods or other property in the possession of the expert with which he was provided in order to prepare his report." 10. An analysis of Section 26 makes it very clear that in case of requirement of any domain expert, it is open to the arbitral tribunal to avail services of an expert or experts, but the same cannot be extended to mean appointment of additional arbitrators having domain expertise. The question now is whether the request of the petitioner - respondent can be entertained. 11. The main ground on which the Tribunal rejected the request is that strict rules of evidence may not apply to proceedings before the arbitrator, but the basic principles of jurisprudence cannot be given a go bye. It has been held that the burden of proof is constant and onus shifts from one party to another, depending on the evidence adduced by the parties. While holding that, the Tribunal goes on holding that with the able assistance of the learned counsel for both sides, who are experts in the cyber law and e-governance, will be able to assist the tribunal, which is not well versed in the knowledge of Information Technology, which is developed recently and as such, two counsel would come to the rescue of the tribunal in arriving at the points to be decided by the Tribunal; hence, while holding that the application is made to drag on the proceedings, rejected the request. 12. A reading of Section 26 of the Act show that it is open for the arbitral tribunal to decide as to whether any expert evidence is required or whether it required to avail services of an expert. On an assumption that both the counsel are experts of cyber laws and e-governance, the Arbitrator felt that they will be able to assist the Tribunal in coming to a correct conclusion. 13. On an assumption that both the counsel are experts of cyber laws and e-governance, the Arbitrator felt that they will be able to assist the Tribunal in coming to a correct conclusion. 13. The knowledge of the counsel appearing before the Tribunal vis- -vis subject involved would at the most be a gathered knowledge and they cannot have knowledge as acquired by an academically trained person on the subjects involved. The proceedings before the Tribunal is said to have commenced in the year 2018. The issue as to whether the appointment of an expert or to avail services of an expert is for the Arbitrator to decide its requirement. It is for the arbitral tribunal to consider its necessity and if so, the expert shall after the delivery of his written or oral record, participate in oral hearing where parties have opportunity to put questions to him in order to testify on points issued. Merely because the revision petitioners felt that they have adduced enough evidence, the same may not be sufficient to appoint an arbitrator. 14. But, in the instant case, the arbitral tribunal rejected the request on the ground that the two counsel appearing would be able to assist the Arbitrator. Definitely, they are not experts in the subject matter which is before the tribunal. The material on record, more particularly the written arguments submitted show that the claimant herein provided names of several persons, referring them as faculty members, who were involved in developing the courseware. When information is sought from the alleged faculty member, they seem to have sent email, disowning their responsibility, intervention and interference with the subject task. Therefore, as urged it is a fit case where Arbitrator should have taken the help of experts to make in-depth enquiry into the contents, in order to come to the conclusion with regard to the material supplied by the claimant, as the terms of agreement reflect that the material to be supplied or prepared by the claimant should not be gathered from the public domain or is a plagiarized content. Having regard to the above taking the assistance of an expert/expert committee cannot be said to be an incorrect approach or that the same is not necessary, more so when public money is involved, which should not go waste in the garb of breach of contract. 15. In Bhavanam Siva Reddy and 2 Others Vs. Having regard to the above taking the assistance of an expert/expert committee cannot be said to be an incorrect approach or that the same is not necessary, more so when public money is involved, which should not go waste in the garb of breach of contract. 15. In Bhavanam Siva Reddy and 2 Others Vs. Bhavanam Hanumantha Reddy and others (decided on 30-12-2016) this Court held as under : "The cases in which testimony of an expert is admissible are of two types : (1) When the conclusions to be drawn by the Court depends upon the existence of facts which are not of common knowledge and which are peculiarly with in the special knowledge of men whose experience and study enables them to speak with authority upon the subjects in question. (2) When the conclusions to be drawn by the Court depends both upon the facts stated as well as the knowledge of the facts themselves not within the range of ordinary intelligence. In the first class of cases the facts are to be stated by the expert and the conclusion is to be drawn by the court. In the second class of cases the expert states the facts and give his conclusions in the form of opinion which may be accepted or rejected by the court from appreciation of evidence. The test to determine competency of an expert is (a) Educational background in the field, (b) Practical knowledge in the field, (c) Careful analysis in arriving to the conclusion opined & (d) Ability to explain the expertise and how he arrived to the conclusion opined." 16. In M.Rani Vs. A.Bala @ Palaniammal (decided on 9th November, 2014) the Madras High Court held as under : "Lawyers and Judges may be experts in the science of law but may not be in pure, applied, physical sciences, halography (science of handwriting) datilography (finger printing). There are experts in those sciences. One becomes an expert by attaining qualifications, proficiency and long years of experience in their chosen field. Frankly, Lawyers and Judges may be par excellence in Law and law related matters but, they may not be so in the said sciences. To excel in their professional career various sciences affecting human life and conduct, they must be a megalomaniac but they cannot be expert in all. They are separate experts in each scientific field. Frankly, Lawyers and Judges may be par excellence in Law and law related matters but, they may not be so in the said sciences. To excel in their professional career various sciences affecting human life and conduct, they must be a megalomaniac but they cannot be expert in all. They are separate experts in each scientific field. But they will render valuable guidance and assistant to the court in its mission to arrive at the truth. That is how it is said obtaining the opinion of expert on the disputed signatures depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this regard, there cannot be any cut and dried formula." 17. It is no doubt true that proceedings may get delayed, but, having regard to the facts in issue and since education of young students are at stake, we are of the view that in a society where education is given importance, imparting of the same with the best of its kind should be of paramount consideration. 18. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.