Wm 1H zoo mm (Wu) W WW?“ HIGH COURT OF CHHARll'TISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon’ble Shri hirendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri “N. Chandrakar, JJ WW§$§W #aimm Comm:- Petitioner Respondents Writ getition under Article 22¢ Present: Writ Petition 1C I No.21 64/2009 M/s. Viahesh Kumar Dulhani, ThrOJgh: Partner-Mahesh Kumar Dhulini, S/o Shankar Lal Dulhani, aged about 38 years, R/o Main Ro Katghora, Tahsil Katghora, Distr tKorba(CG) Versus Stat of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secr tary, Panchayat. & Rural Dev opment Department, D.K.S. Bha an, Mantralaya, Raipur Chh tisgarh Rural Road Dev opment Authority (C.G R.R.D.A), through the Chief Engi eer, Civil Lines, Raipur (CG) The Chief Executive Officer, Chh tisgarh Rural Road D‘ev opment Authority, Vikas Bha an,Raipur(CG) Exec tive Engineer/Member Secr tary Project Implementation Unit 0.1, PMGSY, Bilaspur (CG) of the Constitution of India ari, counsel for the petitioner. rddl. Advocate General for the State. Shri Anand Kumar Tiw Shri Kishore Bhaduri, l / Oral Drder (Passed on 29:“ of April, 2009) v a, m ‘ .....u.........f:“ 20° m ram (Wu) WWW e. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the ,averment th t any dispute between the parties arising out of the work agreern ,t, where one party is the State Government, is to belladjudicated b the Tribunal constituted under the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhik ran Adhiniyam, 1983. However, ‘the Tribunal is not functional at p‘re ent for want of Coram. (2) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learn d Additional Advocate General for the State/respondents, on instruc ons from the State Government, submitted that the Tribunal is not fu _ctional at present. (3) Indisputably, Clause 24 of t _e contract agreement between the parties provides for dispute red al system, whereas, Clause-25 provides for arbitration. l (4) In view of existence of agreement and in'the .light of ndisputed fact that the tribunal I constituted under/theV Qhhatti gafh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is not functional a present, we are of the considered 2’,” acafffmm wmm mw wm_ Dhirendra Mishra J:- The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the order dated 07.01.2009 (Annexure P-2j‘ passed by the respondent No.3, whereby a eum of Rs.73,29,645/- s sought to be recovered from the petitioner in relation to the works contract executed between the petitioner and the respondents/St rbitration clause in the contract r s WW, W,W mm ,uizoo 311wm (We) mmm v~$r opinion that the petitioner has z under the Arbitration & Conciliation WWW WW wm kwm ilternative and efficacious remedy Act; 1996. (5) The disputed question of f the State because of acts of ( petitioner in relation to a work cont adjudicated in a writ proceeding a of evidence. (6) Accordingly, the instant petition petitioner has alternative & efficz i grievances raised in this petition. i Sd/- r Dhirendra Mishra Judge ict regarding damages suffered by missions and commission of the “act under the agreement cannot be ‘5 the same would require recording is dismissed on the ground that the cious remedy for redressal of his l r Sd/- : R.N. Chandrakar f l Judge A ‘