HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE MR. T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE MR. R. L.jJWWWAR^JJ. AppUcant CrVIL RBVISION No. 57/2010 M/s. Lalit Constructions Co. Through: LaUt Kumar Oswal, Managing Partner MIG-33, Padinanabhpur, Diu-g (CG). VERSU8 Respondent State of Chliattisgarh, Through: The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Bridge Construction Division, Bchiad Akashwani Bbawan, Raipur (CG). APPLICATION FOR REVISION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE MADHYASTHAMADHIKARANADHINTyAM, 1983. Present:-, Shri N. Naha Roy, Advcx-ate for the applicaat/petitioner. 'Shri&.K. Mishra, P.L. for the State/respondent. \ ORDE31 (Passed on JZ<? /07/2010) . / The foUowihg order of the Coyrt was passed bv T.P. Sharnia, J:- 1. By this civil revision petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 29/1/10 passed by Chhattisgarh Madhyasthain Adhikaran, Raipur in short "Adhikaran" in reference petition No. 104/2005 whereby Adhikaran has disinissed the reference petition on the ground of limitation. 2, Brief Facts riecessary for this civil revision is petitioner construction company was awarded work of iS*^ti£2-i'3'''?ld :'fe,'•^SSSS-^ie'eS^ss v^^. • '*»a> t' .S? /F •;-^^s-^ Ot/>~ construction by the respondent under agreenient. Petitioner completed the work in the year 1989 and finaUy bill was prepared and submitted before the coinpetent authority on 12/7/89 and also inade deraand before the competent authority on 24/3/90. The conipetent authority has not paid the final biU subraitted by the petitioner on the ground of arbitrariness and the payinent was inade on the basis of another final payment prepared by the department on 26/8/89 and thereby denied the claini as made by the petitioner then petitioner approached and f2ed the claun before the higher authority i.e. Superintendent Engineer (Zonal Manager) on 24/-3/90 it was not decided by the superior authority for 4 years and finally claim was decided partly on 31/5/96 and final payinent was made on 5/1/98 then petitioner has preferred appeal before the Chief Engineer on 26/1/98 which was dismissed on the ground of limitation thereafter present reference has been inade before the Adhikaran under Section 7-B of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhmiyam,1983 (m short "Adhiniyam 1983"). ^.-•-f ftx. .{y iS a 't' ^- " \. 'iSSyf>, !S ""^s^, s' ••-^^ l; \\ & ;' ,-y1 3. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, Adhikaran dismissed the reference petition on the ground of limitation. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner Shri N. Naha Roy and P.L. for fhe State/respondent Shri S.K. Mishra are heard.Order impugned perused. 5. Leamed counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that present petitioner has filed the reference petition within 1 year from the date of filing of the appeal before the Chief Engineer dated 26/1/98 but Adhikaran by disniissing the reference petition on the ground of limitation has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it and thereby committed an iUegality. 6. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further argued that no specific stage for refemng the dispute before the final aufhority or Adhikaran have been provided under the Adhiniyam, 1983 therefore, his claim cannot be denied even on the ground of any bona-fide latehes of the petitioner. 7. Leamed counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in the matter of J?._P. Senflh.aLv. State of M.P. and ift-i-. »N another1 in which Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that in the light of Clause- 19 of the agreement from that case the decision required in Clause -A of Subsection -1 of Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam, 1983 include the decision of the higher authority. 8. On the other hand, leamed counsel for t!a& respondent/State vehemently opposed the civU revision and submits that in accordance with the Section 78 of the Act lunitation for ffling reference before the Adhikaran is one year. On the date of communication of the order/decision of the final authority and fmal authorityhas not accepted the final bill as claimed by the petitioner and prepared final biU on 26/8/89 shows that claim of the petitioner has been denied by the final authority therefore, petitaSuer was under obligation to file the reference within 1 year. On 26/8/89 before Adhikaran but with a view to put his claim within lunitation, the petitioner has unnecessarily ffled application to the Superintendent Engineer and Chief Engineer who are not final 2005 (2JM.P.L.J. Page-68 k'": n .iia..- ^ authority. Therefore, Adhikaran has rightly disinissed the reference petition on the ground of liinitation. ' 9. In order to appreciate the argunaents advanced on behalf of the parties, we have examined the order aad other copy of documents i.e. copy of petition ffled before the Adhikaran and order dated 28/5/99 passed by Chief Engineer. 10. Order unpugned and copy of other docuinents filed on behalf of the petitioner reveals that final bill was prepared on 26/8/89 and it was subraitted for payment but department has legally deducted the amount and has not prepared final bill in accordance with the claun of the petitioner therefore, he raade demand before the Zonal Manager (Called Superintendent Engineer) vide letter dated 24/3/90 but that was kept niuin tiU 31/5/96 and order was cornmunicated on 5/1/98 thereafter petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Engineer on 26/1/98 which was rejected vide order dated 28/5/99 as per claim ofthe petitioner. 11. Present petitioner has filed reference within 1 year 26/1/98 and has tried to make out its case within limitation on the ground that after rejection of appeal ^1'/?^?^^^^^^^^^ :7*4-. •B»W'»fe£*i ^-.LE^^i^^^^^ 12, 13. by Superintendent Engineer petitioner has preferred this arbitration reference. His claim was finaUy denied/decided by the final authority on 26/1/98 then there was no occasion to file any petition before its superior authority in case of R. P. Senyhal v. State of M.P. and another (Suprci) specific provisions was inade in the agreenaent on the basis of such provisions High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that higher authority also include in the final authority but in the present case, petitioner has not been able to show such circumstances. Adhikaran has dismissed the reference petition on the ground of lunitation. Petitioner was under obUgation to prefer his reference within 1 year from 26/8/89 but has not preferred the reference within one year. On close scrutiny of the order impugned, we do not find any illegality requiring any interference in terms of ^ invoking revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, this civil revision is liable to be disinissed and is hereby disinissed. N'o order as to costs. Sd/- T.P.Shanna Judge Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge 20/7/2010 ^