Petltloner HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Clvia Revislori No.193 of M/'s Uiisted Constructlon Company, Through its Partner Shri Bjpin Chandra Patei, S/o Late Shrl Purushottam Das Dhori Bhai Patel, Aged about 61 years, R/o Bastar Road, Dhamtan, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). Resgsondents 3. 4. Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, MantraSaya, Rsjpur (CG). Superintending Englneer, Mahanadl Reservoir Project Cjrcie, Rudn\ Dlstrict Dhamtsri (CG). Executive Englneeer, Mahanadl Reservoir Project, Dam Divlslon No.2, Rudri, District Dhamtari (CG). Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Ralpur (CG) Through sts Reglstrar. (CJvi! Revislon under Sectton 19 (1) ofths Chhattlsgarh iViadhyastham Adhikaran, 1983) D3: Hon'bSe Mr. T.P. Sharm®& Hon'ble Mr. R.L.Jhanwar, JJ Present:- Mr.B.D.Guru, counsei for the petjtioner. Mr.Sushii Dubsy, Govt.Advocate for respondsnts No.1 to 3/State. None present for respondent No.4. PRALORDER (Passed on 18th Aisgust, 2010) 1. The petltioner has chaiienged the legality & proprlety of the award dated 7.9.2005 passed fay the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran. Ralpur, In Reference Case No.17/2005, whereby by aliowlng partly cialm of Rs.5,86,362/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per snnum has dlsaijowed other ciasms. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the partles, perused the award impugned and record ofthe Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur. 3. Learned counsei for the petltioner submits that the petitloner has cSalmed real loss accrued to It by deliberate act of the respondents, therefore, the petttioner Is entltied for its real !oss. By dlsallowlng such clalms, the Chhatttsgarh Madhyastham Adhlkaran, Ralpur has commltted grave iliegaiity and has failed to exercise the jurisdictlon vested on st. 4. On the other hand, iearned State counsel supported the award Impugned and submits that the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran has deait other part of the daims snd after considering the question of entitiement of cialm of the petitloner, the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhlkaran has disailowed the clalms of the petitloner. The Chhattisgsrh Madhyastham Adhjkaran has nelther exceeded the jurisdiction nor faiSed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it. The Chhattisgarh Msdhyastham Adhlkaran has aiso not commjtted any iSiegaiity by not aliowing the ciaims of the petltloner. 5. From perusal of the award impugned, it appears that the petitloner has daimed Rs.14,31,499.94 as price adjustment charges under clause 32 A of the agreement, Rs.97,509.51 as value of benchlng, Rs.6,06,521/- for transportation of metal from trade quarries royalty pald thereon and cost of boulders seized by the forest department, Rs.15,23,308.26 as cost of 20 m.m. thick cemsnt mortar and Rs.10,95,772/- as Interest on the amount of aforementioned clalms. The Chhattisgarh Madhyasthsm Adhikaran has discussed the entitiemsnt of the petstioner in detaii and has dlsaSSowed the cjalms on the ground that the petitioner Is not entitied for such cialms. Only Department was not liable for causlng delay and the petstioner was aiso responsible for causlng deiay in compietion of work. !n these circumstances, both the partles Vv'ere not entltled for any claims or damages. 6. On ciose scrutlny of the record and finding of the Chhattlsgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, we do not flnd any iliegailty In the award Impugned. The Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran h8S nesther falled to exerdse the jurisdiction vested on it nor exceeded the jurisdictlon vested on It. ^^ .^' "\ -^. i- ^.••.^^••,. '"^•^^' 6 ^ 7. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this rsvlston. The rsvlsion belng devoid of merit is ilabse to be dismissed and is hereby dismsssed. No order as to costs. R.L. Jhanwar TP.^ann, | Jud8e Judge