Judgment : (Sanjay S. Agrawal, J.) 1) The instant appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1996’) read with Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (henceforth ‘the Act, 2015’) has been preferred against the order dated 03-11-2018 passed by the Commercial Court (District Level), Raipur, in MJC No.7/18, wherein the application filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was rejected. 2) The appellant-Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, incorporated under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1956’) issued a NIT/EOI (Notice Inviting Tender/ Expression of Interest) to carry out the work of planning and designing for execution of Storm Drainage Water System for Bilaspur City on 15-7-2010 under the UIDSSMT (Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns), a project of the Government of India, which is a component of JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission). 3) Pursuant to the said NIT/EOI, the respondent/claimant herein submitted its bid, which was accepted by the appellant/ Corporation and contract agreement dated 24-01-2011 was executed between the parties and the work order was issued on 27-01-2011 in favour of the respondent/claimant for executing the work. The payment of consultancy fee was @ 1.18% of the total project cost. Initially the cost of the project was Rs.37.53 crores and it was agreed that actual fees would be worked out based on the agreed percentage of the total final cost of the project. 4) The respondent/claimant submitted the Inception Report, Preliminary Design Report and Draft Detailed Project Report (DPR) as a part of execution of work and the payment was made by the appellant/Corporation for above work as per the payment schedule. After approval of final DPR, the respondent/claimant claimed Rs.4,07,03,583/- being 1.18% of total cost project of Rs.333.93 crores. The said claim was refused by the appellant/Corporation and, as such, the dispute was referred to the Sole Arbitrator for adjudication, who was appointed under sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act, 1996 by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2017 in ARBA No.67/2016. 5) The respondent/claimant raised its claim for consultancy charges at the rate of 1.18% of the total project cost, i.e. Rs.333.93 crores as per clause 4(C) of the contract agreement before the Sole Arbitrator. 5) The respondent/claimant raised its claim for consultancy charges at the rate of 1.18% of the total project cost, i.e. Rs.333.93 crores as per clause 4(C) of the contract agreement before the Sole Arbitrator. The learned Sole Arbitrator after considering the submission advanced, evidence adduced and documents produced, allowed the claim of the respondent herein and passed an award to the tune of Rs.4,07,03,583/- (Rs. Four Crores Seven Lacs Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three only). It has also been observed by the Sole Arbitrator that in case, the award amount is not paid within a period of three months from 07-02-2018, it would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of expiry of three months. The relevant observation made in this regard at paragraph 31 reads as under :- “31. In the result, an award for a total sum of Rs.4,07,03,583/-(Rupees Four Crores Seven Lakhs Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three only) is passed in favour of the claimant and against the respondent. The respondent is allowed three months time from today i.e. 07.02.2018 for satisfying the award. In case the award amount is not paid within that period then the respondent shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of expiry of three months till date of realization. Parties shall bear their own cost”. 6) Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/Corporation challenged the same before the learned Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, which has been rejected by the Commercial Court vide impugned order and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. Parties shall bear their own cost”. 6) Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant/Corporation challenged the same before the learned Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, which has been rejected by the Commercial Court vide impugned order and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 7) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Corporation would submit that :- a) the Arbitrator travelled beyond the Terms of Reference (ToR) as was envisaged under the NIT/EOI; b) the Arbitrator only considered the Pre DPR activities, but the Post DPR, which contained the Surveys, Investigation, Data Collection and providing Implementation Support Post DPR to BMC, was also part of contract; c) the expertise of the consultant/respondent was not only limited to passing of the project, but extended even after the final project is approved while implementation of the project; d) the Arbitrator was required to arbitrate within the terms of the contract and he had no power apart from what the parties have given to him under the contract; e) the post DPR activities, which were required to be performed by the respondent/claimant, was not considered; f) the Arbitration Tribunal has failed to deal with the post DPR part, therefore, misdirected itself to decide the issue; g) under the scheme, the sharing of expenditure for the project was 80:10:10, whereby 80% cost was to be borne by the Government of India and remaining 10% each to be shared by the Government of Chhattisgarh and the Municipal Corporation/appellant; h) the final project was not approved by the Ministry of Urban Development and the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, therefore, the finality of the total project cost of Rs.333.93 crores was never approved;and i) since the remaining fee of the respondent/claimant submitted on 03.03.2014 vide C-18 was neither refused nor was accepted, therefore, the claim as made, in absence of cause of action is rather pre-matured and was to be dismissed in limine. 8) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant, per contra, would submit that :- a) as per the guidelines framed under the UIDSSMT Scheme, the Nodal Agency of the Central Government had already granted approval; b) the payment of Rs.4,07,03,583/- was required to be paid as per the DPR and as per the agreement, DPR submitted by the respondent was approved by the SLSC (State Level Sanctioning Committee) and NBCC (National Building Construction Corporation Ltd.), which are the nodal agencies to approve the final DPR; c) initially at the inception of work, as per the contract agreement, the respondent/claimant was required to prepare a detailed cost estimate, which was finally worked out to Rs.333.93 crores, as such, when the final cost of project has been approved by the appellant/ Corporation, the respondent was entitled to claim; d) the respondent/claimant is the consultant and the consultancy cannot act without taking any financial sanction against the terms of agreement; and e) with respect to scope of jurisdiction of this Court, learned counsel would submit that this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the finding arrived at by the learned Sole Arbitrator and, it would only exercise the supervisory role, and, as such, no illegality can be attached to the order of the learned Commercial Court. 9) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 10) Undisputedly, an agreement was executed between the parties on 24.01.2011 (part of C-1) and the Work Order for Planning and Designing for execution of “Storm Water Drainage System For Bilaspur City” was issued to the respondent/claimant vide C-1 dated 27.01.2011. According to it, the estimated cost of project was Rs.37.53 crores and the consultancy fee of the respondent/claimant was assessed to the tune of Rs.44.26 lacs approximately and by virtue of Clause 4-C of the agreement, the total fee shall be paid @ 1.18 % of the total project cost and the actual fees shall be worked out based upon the said agreed percentage of the total final cost of the project. 11) Initially, a letter under the Expression of Interest was issued on 15-07-2010, wherein the Terms of Reference was given, which is quoted below for ready reference : Terms of Reference : Getting prepared DPR for Bilaspur City, including surveys, investigation, data collection, planning and designing various components, detailed Engineering, cost estimation and assisting in representing BMC at various levels for seeking appraisal and approvals from GOCG/GOI and from State level Nodal Agency. Providing implementation support post DPR to BMC including detailed engineering tender documentation as defined in REP. 12) Subsequently, when the contract agreement was executed on 24-01-2011 in between the appellant/Corporation and the respondent/claimant, the services includes the services specified in Appendix IV of the RFP, Terms of Reference, which is made an integral part of the Contract. The contract also includes ToR and its objective. Clauses 2.1 & 2.2 i.e. Objective is quoted below for ready reference : 2. Objective : 2.1 The objective of the consultancy is to provide detailed planning Designing for execution of Storm Water Drainage System to BMC, which includes management, design, detailed engineering services, planning procurement support. 2.2 Comprise surveys, investigations, consultancy activities leading to preparation of detailed project reports, bid documents and further procurement support. It includes all necessary investigation including but not limited to topographic and alignment surveys, geo- technical investigations, soil investigation, finalization of design concepts of Storm Water Drainage infrastructure (gravity based), preparation of detailed designs for Storm Water Drainage, estimation of costs, finalization of alignment and routing of drain, preparation of tender documents. 13) The Terms of Reference (ToR) also includes the planing designing for execution of storm water drainage system for Bilaspur City that includes the Surveys, Investigations and Mapping of Drainage Infrastructure, design and cost estimates, BID process management for identification of contracts etc. for both, particularly scope of service as specified in Appendix-IV is reproduced herein under:- As per contract agreement (Annexure C-1) “scope of services” is specified is Appendix IV of RFP which is reproduced hereunder:- “3.1 Specific Services Planning Designing for Execution of Storm Water Drainage System (a) Surveys, Investigations and Mapping of Drainage Infrastructure. (1) Carry out detailed Topological and Alignment surveys as needed; Carry out hydraulic, geotechnical and soil investigations, traffic surveys etc. needed to assess impacts, and design drainage infrastructure. Understand and collect information on the latest growth and development trends for Bilaspur Municipal Corporation Area. (1) Carry out detailed Topological and Alignment surveys as needed; Carry out hydraulic, geotechnical and soil investigations, traffic surveys etc. needed to assess impacts, and design drainage infrastructure. Understand and collect information on the latest growth and development trends for Bilaspur Municipal Corporation Area. (2) Study existing road infrastructure in the Municipality along with existing road side and cross drainage. (3) Map the existing drainage assets, along with road and drainage network. (4) Carry out surveys, study and assess drainage flows using appropriate sampling methods. (b) Designs and Cost Estimates (1) Based on the updated PEDRs, prepare the detailed designs of drainage infrastructure facilities comprising drainage system (includes collection and transmission based on gravity), in the project area in accordance with applicable standards (including the Manual for Drainage by CPHEEO); using standard software’s. (2) Design appropriate drainage facilities and connecting, systems for improving the access to Urban Poor based on the Urban Poor Strategy or Policy being instituted for the Project. (3) Designing road restoration where needed subsequent to completion of drainage works as per the codes and standards of the Indian Roads Congress (IRC Codes) and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H). Design and detailed engineering for restoration of roads along with drainage. (4) Prepare detailed cost estimates; both capital and OM (5) Prepare detailed economic analysis of the alternative chosen. (6) Prepare detailed project reports for Bilaspur Municipal Corporation area. (7) Prepare detailed Operation and Maintenance Plans for Drainage Systems. (c) Bid Process Management and Identification of Contractors Based on the package identified, prepare Bid Documents as per world Banks model documents, Bill of Quantities (BoOs) and constitution drawings.” (Emphasis supplied) 14) EOI (Expression of Interest) dated 15.07.2010 providing of service of consultancy by the respondent/claimant includes implementation support post DPR to BMC including detailed engineering, tender documentation and the clause 4 of the agreement speaks about the mode of payment. For sake of brevity, clause 4 of the agreement is reproduced as under:- “ 4.PAYMENT 4(A) Schedule of payments for Storm Water Drainage System The Schedule of payments for detailed planning and design period. Sr. No. Mile Stone % of total amount payments i.e. planning & design fees 1. Submission of Inception Report 20% 2. Submission of final concept plan and updated preliminary design reports, with maps and drawings etc. 20% 3. Submission of draft detailed project report for Bilaspur, Municipal Corporation. 20% 4. Sr. No. Mile Stone % of total amount payments i.e. planning & design fees 1. Submission of Inception Report 20% 2. Submission of final concept plan and updated preliminary design reports, with maps and drawings etc. 20% 3. Submission of draft detailed project report for Bilaspur, Municipal Corporation. 20% 4. Approved of final DPR and bid documents 40% “4 (B) Payment conditions:- Payment shall be made in the form of cheque of Indian National Rupees not later than 30 days following submission of invoices in duplicate to the Coordinator designated paragraph 5. 4(C) FEES The total fees shall be paid at the rate of 1.18% (One point one eight percent) of the total project cost. The estimated fees worksout to approximately Rs. 44.28 lakh based on the estimated cost of project. Actual fees shall be worked out based on the agreed percentage of the total final cost of the project.” 15) The cost of the project was to be shared by the Government of India, State Government and the Municipal Corporation under the UIDSSMT (Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns). For ready reference the operational mechanism was as under:- Operational Mechanism : …..On receipt of Minutes from SLSC the MOUD process the proposal for release of central assistance, sign the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for urban reforms with State Govt. and send the release proposal to Ministry of Finance. The sharing of funds is in the ratio of 80:10 between Central Government & State Government and the balance 10% could be raised by the nodal / implementing agencies including ULBs from the internal resources or from financial institutions…… 16) Reading of it would show that the Urban local bodies were required to prepare the detailed Project Reports pursuant to their development plan and was required to be submitted to State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA). The SLNA further was required to appraise the DPR either in house or through outsourcing or through State Level Technical Agencies and after appraisal, it was required to be submitted to the State Level Sanctioning Committee (SLSC). The SLNA further was required to appraise the DPR either in house or through outsourcing or through State Level Technical Agencies and after appraisal, it was required to be submitted to the State Level Sanctioning Committee (SLSC). 17) Meaning thereby, first tier was urban body sanction from the urban body; second was State Level Nodal Agency; and at third stage firstly it was required to send the appraise report to all the members of SLSC, i.e. State Level Sanctioning Committee including Ministry and after approval of all projects are considered by SLSC on approval of the minutes along with recommendation are required to be sent by the State Government to the Ministry of Urban Development (MOUD). On receipt of Minutes from SLSC, the MOUD process the proposal for release of Central assistance and further the Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) were required to be performed. So, the final stage of approval was on the part of Central Govt., who was required to pay 80% of the project cost. 18) According to the aforesaid Clause 4-A of the agreement, as mentioned herein-above, the Inception Report was submitted by the respondent/claimant on 27.01.2011 vide C-1 and was approved by the appellant/Corporation on 29.06.2011/ 01.07.2011 vide C-2. It appears further that the respondent/ claimant vide his letter dated 19.08.2011 (forming part of C-5) had submitted the final Concept Plan and Preliminary Design Report for the total cost of the project to the tune of Rs.236.06 crores and the same was found to be approved by the appellant/ Corporation vide letter dated 12/13.12.2011 (C-5) and vide letter, dated 23.12.2011 (C-6), it was informed to the respondent /claimant that the said cost mentioned in the Preliminary Design Report (PDR) is tentative and the cost in Detailed Project Report (DPR) will be final and, thereby, he (respondent/claimant) was directed to submit the Detailed Project Report (DPR) on priority basis. Thereafter, the Draft Detailed Report (DPR) submitted by the respondent/claimant on 14.02.2012 was accorded by the appellant/Corporation vide its letter dated 23.02.2012 (C- 7) and he was directed to proceed with the final Detailed Project Report (DPR) as per Clause 4-A of the said agreement. Thereafter, the Draft Detailed Report (DPR) submitted by the respondent/claimant on 14.02.2012 was accorded by the appellant/Corporation vide its letter dated 23.02.2012 (C- 7) and he was directed to proceed with the final Detailed Project Report (DPR) as per Clause 4-A of the said agreement. It, however, to be seen at this stage that the respondent/claimant had submitted the final draft detailed report (DPR) for the total cost of the project to the tune of Rs.303.50 crores vide his letter dated 20.03.2012 (C-8) and four months thereafter, supplementary to above final DPR was submitted vide letter dated 27.07.2012 (C-9), while increasing the project cost from Rs.303.50 crores to Rs.354.07 crores, with a difference of Rs.50.57 crores, which is even much more than the initial total project cost of Rs.37.53 cores and the reasons assigned for its increment was owing to increase in length of “Storm Water Drains” in modified catchments. 19) It appears further that a letter dated 12.10.2012 (C-10) was made by the respondent/claimant to the appellant/ Corporation, seeking its technical approval. It appears further that a resolution was, thereafter, passed by the Mayor of the appellant/Corporation on 10.01.2014 (C-11), wherein, it was observed that the Detailed Project Report (DPR) amounting to Rs.333.93 crores was prepared by the respondent/claimant and since the execution of the alleged project work under the Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) was to be performed after obtaining the aid from the Union of India and the State of Government, therefore, execution of the said project work is accorded subject to approval by the Mayor- in-Council and, the Mayor-in-Council, in turn, vide its letter dated 17.01.2014 (C-12), while approving the said resolution has recommended the matter to be placed before the General Body Meeting, but, the same was, however, not found to be placed therein and rather, it appears that before the said recommendation was made, a letter dated 10.01.2014 (C-13) was issued by the appellant/Corporation to the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Raipur, while annexing the report dated 09.01.2014 of the Expert Committee with regard to the scrutiny of DPR for its approval. 20) It appears further that the State Urban Development Authority (SUDA), Raipur vide its letter dated 13.01.2014 (C-15), has requested the Ministry of Urban Development, Union of India, which is the main funding agency of the Union of India for approval of the alleged DPR amounting to the project cost of Rs.333.93 crores. Although, it was requested for its approval, as such, but, it was, however, not found to be approved and in the meantime, the Minutes of the Meeting of the State Level Sanctioning Committee was held on 24.02.2014 for Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Medium Towns (UIDSSMT) under the Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Urban Administration and Development Department (UADD), Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur and, in principle (not conclusively), the alleged project cost of Rs.333.93 crores, along with other projects, was approved, subject to conformity with the guidelines of UIDSSMT Scheme, conditions of appraisal etc. The alleged approval was, thus, passed subject to the conformity with the guidelines of the said Scheme. It is to be seen at this juncture that, simultaneously, the National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCCL), a nodal agency of the Union of India, was convened in pursuance to the direction issued by the Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi on 22.01.2014 and vide its letter dated 24.02.2014 has accorded its technical appraisal and sent it to the said authority, i.e. Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi, so as the alleged DPR submitted by the respondent/claimant amounting to the tune of Rs.333.93 crores could be approved. 21) Pertinently, to be noted here that when it was sent as such by the National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (NBCCL) for its approval from the Ministry of Urban Development, Union of India, the consultant of the respondent/claimant, namely, Mr. Yunus Ali, was also present. The respondent/claimant was, thus, aware that the alleged DPR amounting to the tune of Rs.333.93 crores was required to be approved by the Ministry of Urban Development, Union of India, but the same was, however, not found to be approved. 22) It is to be seen further that the contract agreement payment clause 4 th milestone speaks about approval of final DPR, which also includes bid document. 22) It is to be seen further that the contract agreement payment clause 4 th milestone speaks about approval of final DPR, which also includes bid document. It is obvious that if the finance was not accorded from the Central Government, which is a major stakeholder to the extent of 80% of finance, how there can be deemed sanction, as held by the learned Arbitrator, because of the fact that the State bodies and the agencies of the Central Government have sent it to the Ministry. Unless the proposal is sanctioned by the Central Government by grant of amount for all practical purposes, it cannot be said that approval of final DPR had passed. 23) It, thus, appears that the approval of alleged DPR amounting to Rs.333.93 crores was not accorded and rather, it was found to be pending consideration before the Ministry of Urban Development, Union of India, however, the respondent/claimant even before its approval, has immediately issued a letter to the appellant/Corporation on 03.03.2014 (C-17) for release of his final payment while submitting his Invoice-4, vide C-18, claiming consultancy fee of Rs.4,07,03,583/- (Rupees Four Crores Seven Lacs Three Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Three only) and, reminder letter was issued four days thereafter, i.e. on 07.03.2014 (C-19) even without submitting its bid documents, which was required to be made mandatorily under Clause 4(A) of the alleged agreement. It so happens because the respondent/ claimant was very well aware that the alleged DPR amounting to the tune of Rs.333.93 crores was not approved by the Ministry of Urban Development, Union of India, therefore, it was not made along with letter seeking his final payment on 03.03.2014. However, in order to overcome it, the bid document was submitted subsequently, on 25.03.2015 vide C-22, that is after passing of more than a year upon claiming the final payment, with an ulterior motive to get the alleged consultancy amount. Be that as it may, it appears further that when the alleged consultancy fee was not released, a letter dated 04.06.2014 (C-20) was made by the respondent/claimant to the Ministry of Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh for release of his alleged amount. Be that as it may, it appears further that when the alleged consultancy fee was not released, a letter dated 04.06.2014 (C-20) was made by the respondent/claimant to the Ministry of Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh for release of his alleged amount. It is to be seen further that after the issuance of aforesaid letters (C-17 to C-20) by the respondent/claimant for release of his fee, a clarification was sought for by the State Urban Development Authority (SUDA) from the appellant/ Corporation on 21.07.2014 and, in pursuance thereof, clarification was made for not releasing the alleged amount by the appellant/ Corporation to the Chief Executive Officer, State Urban Development Authority (SUDA), Raipur vide its letter dated 25.07.2014 (C-21), intimating that the alleged consultancy fee as per Clause 4-C of the agreement could be made only after the approval of the alleged DPR from the Ministry of the Urban Development Department. The said clarification letter (C-21) issued by the appellant/ Corporation is relevant for the purpose which reads as under:- 24) It is, thus, evident that the alleged consultancy fee of the respondent/claimant was, however, not refused and, in fact, it was kept in abeyance by the appellant/Corporation, awaiting the approval of final DPR from the Ministry of Urban Development Department, which is the main funding agency of the Union of India for the said purpose. In view thereof, the claim of the appellant/Corporation, thus, appears to be pre-matured in nature and appears to have been made even before its refusal. His claim, thus, found to be made in absence of the cause of action. 25) At this juncture, certain principles laid down by the Supreme Court are to be seen. In the matter of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and another, 2004 (6) SCC 254 , it was held by the Supreme Court in this regard at para-6, which reads as under:- “6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily”. 26) Likewise in the matter of Alchemist Ltd. and another vs. State Bank of Sikkim and others, (2007) 11 SCC 335 , wherein it was observed by the Supreme Court at Para-22, which is relevant for the purpose, reads as under :- “22. For every action, there has to be a cause of action. If there is no cause of action, the plaint or petition has to be dismissed.” 27) In the matter of State of Orissa and others vs. MESCO Steels Limited and another, (2013) 4 SCC 340 , wherein, a prayer was made in the writ petition filed by the respondent-Company, i.e. MESCO Steels Ltd., for quashing of the recommendation made by the Director of Mines proposing to reduce the lease area granted to the said Company, but, since the final order on the basis of the said recommendation was not made, therefore, the said petition was held to be pre-matured. The relevant observations made at paragraphs 19 & 20 read as under :- “19. It is obvious from a conjoint reading of the letter dated 12.01.2006 and communication dated 19.09.2006 sent by the Director of Mines in response thereto that a final decision on the subject had yet to be taken by the Government, no matter the Government may have provisionally decided to follow the line of action indicated in its communication dated 12.01.2006 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Steel and Mines. It is noteworthy that there was no challenge to the communication dated 12.01.2006 before the High Court nor was any material placed before us to suggest that any final decision was ever taken by the Government on the question of deduction of the area granted in favour of the respondent so as to render the process of issue of show cause notice for hearing the respondent-Company an exercise in futility. 20. On the contrary, the issue of the show- cause notice setting out the reasons that impelled the Government to claim resumption of a part of the proposed lease area from the respondent-Company clearly suggested that the entire process leading up to the issue of the show-cause notice was tentative and no final decision on the subject had been taken at any level. It is only after the Government provisionally decided to resume the area in part or full that a show-cause notice could have been issued. To put the matter beyond any pale of controversy, Mr. Lalit made an unequivocal statement at the Bar on behalf of the State Government that no final decision regarding resumption of any part of the lease area has been taken by the State Government so far and all that had transpired till date must necessarily be taken as provisional. Such being the case the High Court was in error in proceeding on an assumption that a final decision had been taken and in quashing what was no more than an inter-departmental communication constituting at best a step in the process of taking a final decision by the Government. The writ petition in that view was pre-mature and ought to have been disposed of as such.” ……….……. 28) Applying the aforesaid principles to the case in hand, the finding recorded by the learned Arbitrator as well as the Commercial Court, even in absence of the cause of action, would thus, suffers from its patent illegality and, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law. 29) Consequently, the appeal is allowed and, the Arbitral award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the learned Arbitrator in ARBA No.67/2016 and the order impugned dated 03.11.2018 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Level), Raipur in MJC No.7/18, are set-aside. No order as to cost(s).