;\A ym IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CIVIL REVISION N0. 8^ Qp 2007 APPLICANT /' ^Ganga Singh Thakur, son of Shri Kashi Singh Thakur, resident of Chirhuldih Ward, Behind Vivekanand Ashram, Raipur (C.G.) vs RESPONDENTS w/ i%^w <a \- ^j '^ ^1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Raipur. 2. The Executive Engineer, ^' v Bhatapara Canal Construction Division, Raipur. REVkS^N PETITION UNDER SECTIONTs OF THE CHHATTISGARH MADHYASTHAM ADHIKARAN ADHINIYAM. 1983 ^ ^s^ ]^i^SWHS^ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR DMSION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRJ H.L. DATTU, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. CIVIL REVISION N0.23 OF 2007 Ganga Singh Thakur Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another Present: Shri B.P. Shamna, counsel for the applicant. Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General for the State/respondents. APPLICANT RESPONDENTS ORALORDER (Passed on 28tn February. 2007) The following oral oreter of the Court was passed by Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. This revision under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short "the Adhiniyam. 1983") has been directed againstthe award.dated 11-1-2007 passed in reference petition No.14/2CK)5 by the Chhattfegarh Mac^yastham Adhikaran, Rajpur (for short "the Acthjkaran") whereby the reference filed bythe applicanthas been dismissed. 2) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the applicant. who is a registered contractor and undertakes execution of civil engineering work entered into an agreement bearing No.19DL of 1978-79 with respondent State Authorities for construction of aqua-duct at Chainage 330 of Bhatapara Branch Canal. The estimated vatue of the work was Rs.7,28,000/-. Work order was issued by the Executive Engineer, Lower Mahanadi Division on 19-1-1979 with a limitation for completjon of the work up to 18-2-1980. Applicant started his work and agreed to \ z^; accept payment of running bills. After measurement of work ctone by the applicant first running bill for Rs.66,779=^ has been paid to Ihe applicant on 31-3-1979. Applicant's allegation is that, though his work was recorded in measurement book, but subsequently noamount after verificatjon has been paid to him. Applicant has no option, butto stop his work which he did and asked tiie authorities to fulfitl reciprocat obligation of making payment, but no steps have been taken by the Department. On the other hand, respondents repudiated the confract and communicated him vide letter dated 31-3-1980. 3) Applicant fited his claim for recovery of Rs.1,97.932=32 before the Department vide tetter dated 8-7-1980. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the department, filed an apptication under Sectlon 20 of ttie Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short "the Act, 1940") in the Court of District Judge, Raipur, for appointment of the Art3itrator in terms of the arbitral agreement. District Judge. Raipur, after due enquiry dismissed the application. Applicant feeling aggrieved approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which vide its order.dated 2-1-1991 advised the appticant to approach the Adhikaran. Pursuant to tfiat appticant fded reference petition before the Adhikaran. 4) Adhikaran considered the reference on limitation, maintainabHity and also on the merit. Adhikaran held that the reference is barred by time and in view of the findings recorded by the District Judge, Raipur the reference not maintainable. Further on merit aflser appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties held that no justifiabte ground was made out to the petitioner to stop the work and, ttierefore, his contract was rightly rescinded by the Executive Engineer. His daims for additional payment is also not made out in view of poor workmanship r ^ r and slow progress of the work, therefore. the authorities had rightly prepared a final bitl, based on detailed measurement duly checked by the Sub Divisional Officer as wetl as by the Executive Engineer, which worked out in minus amount of Rs.76,956s20, accordingly, the reference has been dismissed by the Adhikaran. 5) Learned counsel appearing for the appllcant contended that reference has been filed by the applicant as advised by Vhe High Court of Madhya Pradesh by order dated 2-1-1991, therefore, the questton of timitation and maintainabilify of the reference on ttie findings of Di^rict Judge does not arise. The Adhikaran vrithout due consideration of the evidence adduced by the applicant has dismissed his reference on merit.. 6) The High Court has been authorised in accordance with Section 19(2) of ttie Adhiniyam, 1983 to interfere with the award tn case following conditions as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1983 are fuffilted: "19. High Court's power of revlsion.—(2)If it appears to the High Court that the Tribunal— (a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b)has faited to exercise a Jurisdiction so vested; or (c) has acted in exercise of ite jurisdicKon illegality, or with materiat irregularity; or (d) has misconducted itselfor the proceedings; or (e) has made an award which is invalid or has been improperiy procured by any party to the proceedings." 7) Dispute between the appticant and Department arises sometime in the year 1979-80. Appticant in order to get an Arbitrator appointed approached the Civil Court, but the District Judge, Raipur after due triat in civil suit N0.11-B/80 vide order dated 30-11-1981 recorded his finding that the applicant was paid more than the work executed by him y. 4 and his contract was rightly repudiated because he had stopped the work on the pretext of non-payment. Since no dispute had existed between the parties, the District Judge dedined to appoint any Arbitrator and dismissed the apptication. The High Court also dismissed the appeal in view of Section 20 the Act, 1940 with a direction that the appticant may wett approach the Adhikaran. Adhiniyam, 1983 came into force on 1-3-1^5. Under Section 20 of the Adhiniyam, 1983 after constitution ofthe Tribunal, thejurisdictlon of the Civil Court was ousted, however, in accordance witti sub-section (2) the arbitration proceedings pending before any Court were altowed to be continued as if Adhiniyam, 1983 had not come tnto force. Here in the instent case, much eariier to the coming into force of Adhiniyam, 1983 or constitution of the Tribunal. District Judge, Raipur, vide order dated 30-11-1981 recorded a finding that no dispute e)dstfor reference to arbitrator and dismissed the apptteatton of the applicant and High Court of Madhya Pradesh also dlsmissed the appeal. Therefore, it appears that so far as existence of dispute in between parties was concerned, that was finally adjudicated by the competent Court and for the ctispute raised by the appljcant cause of action arose much earlier to the coming into force ofthe Adhiniyam, 1983. Having considered all these facts, the Adhikaran opined that the reference fe not tenable having existence of the findings of a competent Court and the limitation started running from 28-3-1980. 8) Applicant himself to support his contention before the Adhikaran filed his afRdavit. Department atso filed afRdavits of Shri MK Sachdeva and Shri H.S. Soni, who were the then Executive Engineers of the Divisjon. Adhikaran considered the evidence of both the parties very •^s^^s8^ minutely and m detail and thereafter held that no justifiabte ground was made out to the petitioner to stop the work and, therefore, his contract was rightty resdnded. It is pertinent to mention here that after measurement, Departenent was constraineci to prepare finat bill of minus amount of Rs.76,^6=20 and after adjustment of eamest money and security deposit the State exchequer has to recover Rs.62,208=20 from the applicant. 9) We are of the considered opinion that the Adhikaran dld not fail to exercise jurisdictjon vested in it. Adhikaran also did not act with illegality or with material irregularity jn passing the award. Adhikaran neither misconducted itself nor the proceedings. Therefore, we do not find any substance, which may call for irrterference in the award passed by the Adhikaran. 10) In the result, the revlsion being devoid of substance deservesto_ be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No cost§^ l^.iiiiiiinixNK Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge