SBCMA No.1464/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. And SBCMA No.1228/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. 1 SBCMA No.1464/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. And SBCMA No.1228/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : - 16.1.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.R Dave, for the appellant. Ms. Rekha Borana, for the respondents. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parities. Both the misc. Appeals are against the order and decree dated 4.4.2008 passed by the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No.46/2005 and 308/2004 having similar question of law, therefore, both the misc. appeals decided by this common judgment. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the Civil Court i.e., Court of District Judge, Sri Ganganagar both dated 4th April, 2008 passed in Civil Misc. Cases no.46/2005 SBCMA No.1464/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. And SBCMA No.1228/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. 2 and 308/2005 by which the petitioners objections against the award dated 20th Sept., 1994 and amended award dated 19th Oct., 2004 and 16th August, 2004 with respect to the work contract job no.015/RJ/90/100 was rejected. As per the facts of the case sole Arbitrator was appointed vide Chief Engineer, PWD's order No.F52(317) ARB/PW/CE/vii/D6907 dated 22nd Dec., 2001 for adjudication of the dispute and the claim between the parties for the above mentioned work. The dispute appears to be for limited purpose. The petitioner's bid was accepted on 28th Oct., 1992. He was to start the work from 12th Nov., 1992 and as per the term of the contract he should have completed the work by 11.8.1994. However, the work was completed on 30th Nov., 1996. As per the facts one more work contract which is job no.015/RJ/09/2000 by agreement dated 21/1992-93 was given. In both the contracts, the dates of the acceptation of the bid, start of work and completion of date are the same, but the work was completed for one contract on 30th Nov., 1996 and in SBCMA No.1464/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. And SBCMA No.1228/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. 3 another on 30th June, 1996. It is also not in dispute that in this late completion of the work by the contractor, the extension of time was sought and it was granted by the Chief Engineer. According to the State, the Chief Engineer granted provisional extension of time and the final sanction could have been granted by the Administrative Department of the Government of Rajasthan and not by the Chief Engineer. Further, when the contractor did not submit completion report then he was asked to obtain the final sanction for the extension of time for completion of the work from the competent authority. For this, the contractor was directed to submit his letter for extension of time. It is submitted that since the contractor did not submit the letter for extension of time as directed by the Department, therefore, he has breached the conditions of the contract. The contractor's case is that as per the Clause (v) of the agreement, the Chief Engineer was the competent authority to grant sanction for the extension of the time and his decision for extension of time is final. It is also SBCMA No.1464/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. And SBCMA No.1228/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. 4 submitted that this aspect has been considered by the learned Arbitrator in its detailed award passed in both the cases. It is also submitted that once the issue has been considered by the Arbitrator and any clause has been interpreted in favour of any of the parties then that cannot be challenged by way of objection to award in the civil court. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the detailed award passed in both the matters. It will be relevant to mention here that the Arbitrator in its finding very specifically held that the contention of the State that the Chief Engineer merely extended the time provisionally is factually wrong. There is no mention of the words “provisionally” in time extension order passed by the competent authority. The Arbitrator very specifically considered the clause (v) of the work agreement executed between the parties wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Chief Engineer shall be the competent authority to extend SBCMA No.1464/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. And SBCMA No.1228/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. 5 the time. Learned counsel for the appellant shown to this Court also “The Power Delegated to the Officers in the Public Works Department”, which is the part of the work order dated 30.8.1998 wherein it has been conveyed that the Governor has been pleased to order that Appendix 13 in the Public Works Financial and Accounts Rules, may be substituted as per the enclosed Appendix. In Appendix 31 the power has been shown of various authorities for extension of the time for execution of the work. The contention of the appellant that power to extend the time was with Government or its Administrative Deaprtment appears to be not correct in view of the fact that in the said Appendix, it is clearly mentioned that the Administrative Department shall also have full power to extend the time limit for execution of the works and alongwith it, the power has been given to the Chief Engineer also and against the Chief Engineer it is mentioned “Full power”. In view of the above reason, I do not find that the SBCMA No.1464/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. And SBCMA No.1228/2008 State Vs. M/s. Liladhar Dewakinandan & Anr. 6 Arbitrator has mis-conducted in any manner or the award is wrong. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-