-^'s':;^, ^ . I..JJ ''-^^^ ;% ,ff ..)"io9 tT~- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 1704 of 2001 PETITIONER : Suresh Singh Thakur S/o Shri Supiyar Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Pondi Bahar (Korba) Tahsil Korba District Bilaspur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department oflrrigation, DK Building, Raipur. 2. Superintending Eagineer, Mimmata Bango Dam Circle Machadoli, Bango District Bilaspur. 3. Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barrage Division Rampur, Korba. 4. Tahsildar, Korba. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents. ORAL ORDER -th (Passed on 26l" day of September, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. Notwithstanding service of the notice, the respondents did not file any retum. 3. Leamed counsel appearmg for the petitioner submits that a dispute was raised with regard to recovery of toll tax on Hasdeo Bridge at Darri Korba, for a period commencing from 01.04.94 to 31.03.95. He was directed by the 'authorities to deposit rent of lease amounting to Rs. 24,01,000/-. The petitioner deposited the same by way of seciirity for due performance of the contract. The agreement was executed accordingly on 01.04.94. :'i-'.-'B,;>ii'f;: ^SS iBlfiKiiS.-aiSfW^isii'^i'SSWKti;'®eSStgtsii / ^"%; ^-^8?%,, ^i ^ -t» ps 6. 7. ^L^ The dispute arose ivith regard to over payment of amount by the contractor. On receipt of recovery notice, which according to petitioner, was contrary to the agreement, the petitioner approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.C.C. No. 821/98 for appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for.short 'the Act, 1996). The High Court, after hearing both the parties, appointed the Superintending Engineer, Minimata Bango Dam, Circle Machadoli Bango, District Bilaspur, as Arbitrator by order dated 25.02.99 (Annexure P/l), to decide the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. It was further directed that the arbitrator shall proGeed under the Act, 1996 and pass an award after affording both the parties opportunity ofhearing. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the dispute was raised to the arbitrator i.e. Superintending Engineer, Hasdeo Pariyojana Mandal, Rampur, Korba, which is evident from the notices issued by the arbitrator on 17.08.2001 and 03.09.2001 (Annexure P/2 & P/3 respectively). In the meantime, the Tahsildar, Korba, on the basis of application moved before him, proceeded with the recovery for a sum of Rs. 12,66,135/- and issued a revenue demand certificate (Annexure P/4). It is submitted by Shri Sahu that the award has not yet been passed, thus, demand for recovery of the disputed amount is vitiated and amounts to violation of order dated 25.02.99 passed by the High Gourt ofM.P. at Jabalpur. ^JB'B* .'«!!•"!'»JtUtl-:".,•...-.„ •ft -fi Sahu ilSP""'"" 8. Leamed counsel appearing for the State admits that no award has been passed as on date. 9. If the dispute is still pending consideration before fhe arbitrator i.e. Superintending Engineer, Minimata Bango Dam, Circle Machadoli Bango, District Bilaspur, no recovery can be made until the award is finally passed. In the event, the award has been passed, the recovery may be made, subject to provisions oflaw. 10. In view of the foregoing, the impugned demand notice dated 24.08.2001 (Annexure P/4) is vitiated and is accordingly quashed. The petition is allowed to the above extend. The arbitrator is directed to proceed with the arbitration proceeding aad pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge y/