Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) This First Appeal from order has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and order dated 24-4-1980 passed by Civil Judge Lucknow, dismissing the objections of the appellant under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, preferred against the award dated 23rd July, 1979 given by the Arbitrators.
(2.) Facts, in very brief, necessary to appreciate the controversy involved, are that the appellant and the respondent entered into a contract for the construction of Aqueduct on River Gomti. According to the terms of the contract, Cement, M. S. Bars and structurals and Sheet Piles, as required for the job, were to be supplied by the appellant to the Respondent-Contractor. The rates to be charged for the above items were also indicated in the agreement. The Structurals were to be made available at the rate of Rs. 1350/- per M. T. The cost of the material supplied was to be recovered from the running account bills. According to the respondents claim, the recoveries from the running bills for the plates supplied were being made at the rate of Rs. 1350/- per M. T. but from 55th Running Accounts Bill onwards, recovery was made at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per M. T. The case of the appellant seems to have been that the plates supplied by it was not covered by "structurals". Hence, the rate provided for supply of structurals at the rate of Rs. 1350/- per M. T. could not be applied.
(3.) In connection with recoveries at a higher rate, the contractor-respondent protested through letter dated October 13/15, 1976 addressed to the Superintending Engineer, XII Circle, Irrigation Works, 12, Mail Avenue, Lucknow, Paper No. C-13. The Superintending Engineer in turn gave his reply through letter dated November 3,1976, Paper No. C-14, saying that the plates were not covered by the item "structurals". Hence, recoveries on higher rates have been made according to the other provisions of the contract. This, however, does not seem to have satisfied the contractor-respondent who again wrote in this connection. The Superintending Engineer again sent his reply dated February 1, 1977, which is Paper No. C-17, after reviewing the issue, informing that the decision conveyed by his earlier letter dated November 3,1976 was final and no change was possible. The Contractor-Respondent wrote a letter dated February 3/4, 1977, Paper No. C-18, addressed to the Superintending Engineer, with a request to refer the dispute to arbitration as per clause No. 14.012 of the contract. The terms of the reference were also sent therewith. The Superintending Engineer replied to the letter vide his letter dated 17-2-1977, Paper No. C-19, informing that the matter relating to appointment of Arbitrator had been taken up with the Government and that the contractor would be advised further in the due course and ultimately, through a tele-printed message, Paper No. C-23, it was informed that on behalf of the Government, one Joint Secretary/Joint Legal Remembrancer, U. P. Government was appointed as Arbitrator in dispute relating to Agreement No. 4/SE/73-74. This also seems to have been confirmed through letter dated May 24, 1977 written by the Superintending Engineer, XII Circle, Irrigation Works, Paper No. C-24.;