ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been preferred by the Applicant-M/s Ashok Kumar Mittal under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam, 1983') questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Arbitration Tribunal, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Reference Case No.13/2014, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Applicant's claim preferred under Section 7A of the Adhiniyam, 1983. The parties to this petition shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Tribunal.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a work contract of "Construction of earth work and 24 numbers structures from new R.D. 10310 M. to 20700M. of Kelo Project Main Canal under Mini Mata Bango Dam Circle District Raigarh" valuing Rs.701.64 lacs was awarded to the Applicant-M/s Ashok Kumar Mittal and an agreement bearing No. 05/DL/2007-2008 was accordingly executed on 12.03.2008. In pursuance thereof, the work order was issued on 17.03.2008 and the stipulated period for completion of the alleged work was 12 months including the rainy season. According to the Applicant, the uninterrupted encumbrance free site was not provided to him as the land was not acquired properly from the land owners as no amount of compensation was distributed to the affected villagers. As a result of which, they have started creating obstruction from the execution of the alleged contract work in planned and phased manner. The stipulated period for completion of alleged work was, therefore, extended from time to time by the Respondents/Non-applicants and in the meantime, they have also changed the drawing and designs of the culverts, which led to invitation of protests from the villagers, compelling them for the institution of the civil suit before the competent court of law. It is pleaded further in the Reference Petition that the extension of time has attracted the payment towards escalation, and therefore, after exhausting in house mechanism of dispute redressal as provided under the agreement, the Reference Petition has been filed before the Tribunal claiming a total sum of Rs.160.18 Lacs and interest thereupon amounting to Rs.9,39,803/-.

(3.) While denying the aforesaid claim, it is pleaded by the Respondents that the special Power of Attorney Holder of the Applicant, namely, Mr. R. Murgesh, was authorised only to look after the alleged contract work and was not empowered to sub delegate his power to anyone else to represent the claim on behalf of the Applicant. The Reference Petition as referred is, therefore, not maintainable and liable to be rejected.