'\- ^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G WRIT PETITION No. .S"?-2 /2001 (tfRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) Petitioner , i.; •; VS. .f"':. ^-Kespondent Kishore Kumar Lala, S/o Late Shri D.A. Lala, aged about 40 yaars, Government Contractor," r/o c-7 HIG, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 1.^" M.P. Police Housing Corporation Limited a corporation controlled by the state ol Madhya Pradssh, Through its Managing Director, 27 Vaishali Nagar, Kotra, Sultanabad, Bhopal (M.P.) (. 2. The project Engineer, M.P. Police Housing Corporation Limited, Raipur Division, Raipur (M.P.) 3. The collector, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Tha Additional Tahsxldar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (M.P.) tfRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUNACE OF APPROPRIATE tfRIT, WKiTS ORDER ^5S^=a%. ,'i^ A'*s^.- OR DIRECTION ETC. ^ ^.•e^rT*^>. ^ ^A. ''^•••^-':—^'- ,^ 'iv ,! jl.f '• -I :;fe r '.r mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No. 533/2001 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Kishore Kumar Lala Versus M.P. Police Housing Corporation Limited and others Appearance: Shri Jitendra Nande, counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.S. Marhas, counsel for respondents No.l and 2. Shri R.R. Sinha, Panel Lawyer for the State. WRIT PETITION LTNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTmJTIONOFINDIA . ORALORDER (10.02.2011) Heard on I.A. No.l for extension of time to incorporate the amendment. (2) Prayer allowed. (3) The amendment be incorporated during the course ofthe day. (4) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally at motion stage. (5) Prayer made in this writ petition is for quashment of fhe demand notice Annexure P-6 issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Raipur in pursuance to the revenue recoveiy certificate issued by the respondent, making demand of a sum of Rs.7,11,702/- from the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for quashment of revenue case No.ll-A/76/1999-2000 pending in the Court of Additional Tabsildar, Raipur. •>^^^ f t;SB"S®'5*\ t' s ^'s^S'^S^^^. \,^y '^-'•^—.s^" —2- (6) Petitioner was awarded contract for constmction of48 numbers ofconstable quarters grade-B for 11 Battalion SAF at Bhilai District Durg on his quoted rate 22.48% below SOR. Agreement Annexure P- 1 was executed between the respondent No.l and the petitioner. The petitioner proceeded to execute the contract, however dispute arose about the execution of the contract and the respondenVcoqioration proceeded to get the remaining work executed from a different agency and thereafter demand notice (Annexure P-6) has been issued to recover the additional expenditure incurred by fhe corporation for completion ofthe vvork. (7) Leamed counsel for 'fhe petitioaer would submit that the proceedings for recovery of the amount by issuance of rsvenue recovety certificate is not appropriate as the respondent/authority are not entitled to initiate any proceeding under Section 155 ofthe C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. It is also contended that the authorities have decided the amount to be recovered in a unilateral manner without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that tlie respondent/corporation has acted arbitrarily while raising the demand and sending it for recoveiy to the concemed Tahsildar. (8) Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondents No.l aad 2 as also leamed Panel Lawyer have argued that the present petition is not maintainable in view of existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is also submitted that when Ae demand was raised by <(?".; '•-», •i^^sSSih. ^ 'R^i*?^'-'^ i ^ -3 the Project Engineer, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director in terms ofclause 29 ofthe agreement which was dismissed as ban-ed by limitation and thus the petitioner, havin^ availed the remedy under the contract, cannot be allowed to contend that he had not been heard by fhe respondenVcorporation. (9) Admittedly, the dispute between the parties have arisen out of and involves interpretation and execution of the subject agreement/contract Annexure P-1. There is also no dispute that clause 29 of the contract contains an arbitration clause, wherein it is provided that against the decision of the Project Engineer the aggrieved party may prefer an appeal before the Managing Director within 30 days and further fhat any part^' aggrieved by the order passed by the Managing Director in appeal, may refer the dispute for arbitration by the Arbitration Tribunal ofthe State constituted by the State Govemment. (10) The petitioner has approached this Court directly without availing remedy available to him under clause 29 ofthe agreement. Thus, prima facie the present petition is not maintainable on ifae ground of availability of altemative remedy, even otherw-ise the present petition involves adjudication of a dispute relating to execution of contract wherein parties would be required to lead evidence regarding performance of work, its measurement etc which cannot be gone into and under taken in this jurisdiction under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. ''^ tteSi£c% r (11) In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed, however the petitioner would be at libert^' to pursue his remedy available to him under clause 29 ofthe agreement. Ifpetitioner makes aii application for referring the matter for arbitration, fhe question regarding condonation of delay, if available, be considered sympathetically and -in accordance with law. Sd/- prashant Kumar Mishra Judge .1- -