SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE matter pertains to the whole sale supply of the country liquor through the Commissioner of Excise to the retail vends run by the Delhi Tourism and transportation Development Corporation Limited ('dttdc Limited' for short) and delhi State Industrial Development Corporation ('dsidc' for short ). In order to carry out the said procurement, the Commissioner of Excise entered into agreements with various suppliers and for the Financial Year 1994-95 such an agreement was entered into with the petitioner herein apart from other suppliers. In pursuance to these agreements, the petitioner was granted L-9/clw-1 licence for supply of country liquor under the provisions of the Delhi liquor Licence Rules, 1976 ('the said Rules' for short ). The period of supply was initially from 15. 05. 1994 to 15. 11. 1994, which was extendable up to 31. 03. 1995 and the specified rate for supply of such liquor was Rs 155 per case. The time period for the supply was extended up to 31. 03. 1995. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was required to keep available supply of 22,500 cases of country liquor as per the letter dated 07. 02. 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the Order as per the practice used to be placed by 20th of the preceding month and the licensee was to arrange the supply in the following manner: 7th of the Month At least 25% of the quantity ordered was to reach the bonded warehouse. 15th of the Month At least 50%. 22nd of the Month At least 75% and remaining by the last day of the month ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims to have obtained the requisite supply, but the entire stock was not picked up by the DTTDC Limited/dsidc in March, 2005 and the supply continued beyond the said month. The dispute pertains to the rate of supply since undisputedly fresh rates were fixed with effect from 01. 04. 2005 at Rs 118. 48 per case. ( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to the same rate of Rs 155 per case even though the supplies may have been made beyond the date of 31. 03. 1995. There was an arbitration clause between the parties and since this dispute arose, the matter was referred to arbitration. ( 5 ) THE arbitrator, Mr. 03. 1995. There was an arbitration clause between the parties and since this dispute arose, the matter was referred to arbitration. ( 5 ) THE arbitrator, Mr. D. S. Negi, made and published the award dated 04. 11. 1996 awarding the amount in favour of the petitioner. Objections filed by the respondent did not succeed and the award was made Rule of the Court on 27. 03. 2001. The respondent aggrieved by the said judgment/decree filed an appeal before the Division Bench which was allowed by the Order dated 05. 04. 2002. The matter was remanded back to the arbitrator to be decided afresh in view of the legal principles set out in the Order of the Division Bench. The controversy which was examined by the Division bench related to the applicability of sub-rule 33 of Rule 33 of the said Rules. It was the finding of the arbitrator that the said sub-rule applied only to Indian made foreign liquor and not to country made liquor and thus the said sub-rule would not apply. Rule 33 and the said sub-rule read as under: ?rule 33. General Conditions applying to all licences every licence under these Rules shall be granted subject to the conditions set forth in this rule: 1) General: The licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Punjab Excise act, 1914 as in force in the Union Territory of Delhi and observe all the rules made thereunder and the terms and conditions of his licence, and orders issued to him by Excise Officer from time to time; and shall for such observance give security in such amount as may be specified by the authority granting the licence in any of the forms described below or partly in one and partly in another, and in addition shall, if the authority granting the licence so requires, give a personal security bond with or without surety in such amount as maybe required to the satisfaction of such authority. ?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ``rule 33 (33 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ``rule 33 (33 ). If any person who has held a licence under these Rules, have in his possession on the expiry on determination or from any other cause of his licence any intoxicant, he shall take action for its disposal in the following: a) He shall submit forthwith to the Collector the list of such intoxicants indicating therein the sale price of each brand. The Collector may allow him time not exceeding 15 days for the disposal of such stocks to the existing licensees: provided that if duty has not been paid on such stocks and the purchaser does not hold a licence permitting him to possess them in bond, the duty on such stocks at the rates in force on the date of sale shall be recovered from the purchaser before he asks possession of them. b) In case the licensee is unable to dispose of such stocks, in part or in full, within the stipulated time, he shall immediately surrender the same to the collector along with a list mentioning the quantity and brand of the undisposed stock. He shall also intimate to the Collector the price at which each brand, so surrendered, shall be sold. It shall be open to the licensee to reduce subsequently the sale price earlier intimated by him. If no sale price is intimated to the Collector at the time of surrendering the stocks, it is lawful for the Collector to dispose of such stocks to the existing licensees by auction. c) The Collector shall arrange to dispose of the surrendered stocks at the price intimated by the outgoing licensee. Whenever such price is reduced by the outgoing licensee, the Collector shall dispose of the remaining stocks at such reduced prices, as may be intimated to him by the former licensee from time to time. In case the stocks remain unsold for a period of 2 months from the date of the determination of the licence, it shall be lawful for the Collector to destroy these stocks after obtaining the approval of the Excise Commissioner. In case the stocks remain unsold for a period of 2 months from the date of the determination of the licence, it shall be lawful for the Collector to destroy these stocks after obtaining the approval of the Excise Commissioner. No compensation will be payable for such destruction to the outgoing licensee. No refund of duty shall also be allowed on stocks of liquor which ultimately remain unsold and are destroyed. Provided that if duty has not been paid on such stocks, the Collector shall not order their destruction but may require in writing any person holding a licence to acquire the stocks, or any part of them, by purchase from the former licensee within six weeks of service of the requisition after payment of duty at the rates in force on the date of the requisition, at such price as may have been indicated by the former licensee or such price as the Commissioner may fix after hearing the parties. d)Where the surrendered stocks are disposed of by the Collector in the manner aforesaid, he shall refund to the outgoing licensee the sale price of these stocks after deducting the expenditure incurred on arranging the disposal of such stocks. e) In case the outgoing licensee is unable to dispose of the stocks within the period allowed by the Collector as stated above and also fails to surrender the same to the Collector after the expiry of the aforesaid period, the possession thereof shall be illegal and unauthorized. Such stocks shall be immediately seized and prosecution will be launched for such unauthorized possession. f) If any person who has held a licence under these rules has in this possession any intoxicant on which duty had not been paid and such person holds a licence permitting him to hold them in bond, he shall be liable to pay duty on such stocks from the date of commencement of his current licence at the rates in force on that date; provided that the licensee shall not be liable to pay interest or any penalty for delayed payment on such duty for a period of one month from the date of commencement. ? ? ( 6 ) THE Division Bench came to the conclusion that the finding of the arbitrator to the effect that the said sub-rule did not apply to country made liquor was perverse and the conclusion reached was that the said sub-rule would apply to all kinds of liquor. The Division Bench also came to the conclusion that every licence granted under the Rules is liable to be governed by the said sub Rule. ( 7 ) A reading of the aforesaid sub-rule, as interpreted by the Division Bench, provides for the manner of disposal of the intoxicants which remain in the possession of the licensee on the expiry of the licence. The licensee is required to submit to the Collector the list of the intoxicants indicating therein the sale price of each brand. The Collector may or may not allow time for disposal of the stock and in case time is not allowed, the licensee is required to immediately surrender the same to the Collector. If the time is extended, the rule prescribed the manner in which the intoxicants have to be dealt with. ( 8 ) A result of the aforesaid is that the matter pertaining to the applicability of sub-rule 33 of Rule 33 of the Rules stood settled in pursuance to the Orders of the Division Bench. The petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition against the same. Leave was granted, but the Civil Appeal No. 8321 of 2002 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide Orders dated 24. 07. 2007. ( 9 ) IN the meantime, after the Order of the Division Bench, the proceedings commenced before the arbitrator again and the arbitrator made and published the award dated 27. 06. 2000. The arbitrator held that the amount claimed by the petitioner on account of difference in price was not payable in view of sub-rule 33 of Rule 33 of the said Rules. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, conscious of the issue of sub-rule 33 of rule 33 of the Rules remaining no more open and the constraints of the matter which can be examined by this Court under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration act, 1940, limited his submission to the aspect that the arbitrator has not taken into consideration the important fact that the authority which placed the order was the same even after 31. 03. 1995. 03. 1995. ( 11 ) IN my considered view, that is no ground to interfere with the award. The arbitrator has rightly noted that the petitioner was required under the Rules to indicate to the Collector a list of intoxicants indicating therein the supply price immediately on the expiry of the licence. The claimant did not follow the procedure required for disposal of stock and thus the Excise Department was correct in disposing of the stock at a price fixed by the Excise Department as there was no alternative. The stock had to be disposed of within a specific time in view of the government revenue involved. ( 12 ) THE aforesaid being the only aspect urged, I find no merits in the objections and the same are dismissed. In view of the objections being dismissed, the award dated 04. 07. 1996 of the sole arbitrator Mr. D. S. Negi is made Rule of the Court leaving the parties to bear their own costs.