Amar Engineering Works vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 19 of the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam questioning the award dated 20.12.2016, by which the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran has rejected the reference petition filed by the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs. 2,56,411/-with interest and release of FDR.

Mr. Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran has not decided the claim of the petitioner on merit and only on the ground that the work in question has not been completed, rejected the reference petition, which is not in accordance with law.

Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned award and submit that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records minutely.

Undisputedly, the petitioner filed a reference petition for refund of Rs. 2,56,411/- along-with interest and release of FDR, which has been rejected by the impugned award by recording a finding as under :

“9. Written arguments filed on behalf of petitioner is also perused. As per submission pleadings and documents petitioner has not completed the work. Respondents have paid the amount but, after termination of the contract respondents have not paid any amount to the petitioner. Undisputedly, the agreement was for construction of Press Building not for daily work. Therefore, petitioner was under obligation to complete the construction. In case of any breach of the terms and contract or in case the petitioner is fail to complete the construction. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief that too, on the ground of the breach committed by it.”

A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the learned Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran did not decide the reference petition on merit and simply on the ground that the petitioner has failed to complete the work in question rejected the reference petition, which is not in conformity with Section 16 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam. Furthermore, the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran rejected the claim mainly because the work in question has not been completed and held that the petitioner has committed breach in terms of the contract and rejected the reference petition. Consequently, the impugned award dated 20.12.2016 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran to decide the claim on merit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

All the pleas are left open to be considered by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran shall decide the matter on its own merit, strictly in accordance with law.