UMESH CHANDRA PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/petitioner has filed this petition under Section 19 of the C.G. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 against the award dated 1-3-2006 passed by the C.G. Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur in Ref. Petition No. 64/2005. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is a registered contractor. His tender was accepted in respect of construction of four units of laboratory blocks and wire fencing for two barracks including W/S, S/F and electrification at open Jail Masgaon. Agreement was entered into between the parties in the year 1991. Accepted rate of work was 35% above C.S.R. of Bastar Circle. The period of completion of work was 11 months and accordingly, the work was to be completed by 30-5-1992. The work order was given on 30-5-1991.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in case of dispute or differences between the parties pertaining to works contract. Clause 29 of the Agreement provides that the State Government shall constitute an Arbitration Board which shall consist of 3 members one of whom shall be chosen from the officers belonging to the department not below the rank of Superintending Engineer and in the instant case without there being any such technical member, the constitution of the Tribunal consisting of one Hon'ble High Court Judge (Retd.) and one District Judge (Retd.) was itself defective and as such the decision rendered by the Tribunal consisting of two members is illegal and void ab-initio. He further submits that the inclusion of the officer of a technical department is not just a mere formality, it was with a view and purpose that the matter bears technical interpretation and as the person having technical knowledge was not included in the Arbitration Board, the decision of the Tribunal was bad in law and it is liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., 2008 10 SCC 240, wherein it has been held in paras 12 to 13 as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the State/respondents 1 & 2 submits that the award sought to be revised by the applicant has been passed by the Tribunal, therefore, the proceedings conducted and the award passed by the Tribunal are within the jurisdiction so vested in it and there was no illegality or material irregularity in the award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. He further submits that the powers of the Court in revisional jurisdiction are limited and therefore, no interference is called for in this revision. He placed reliance in Masjid Kachha Tank v. Tufel Mohd, 1991 Supp2 SCC 270, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court held that u/s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court cannot reappreciate the evidence and set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below by taking a different view. Interference with findings of fact only justified if perverse or if there was non-appreciation or non-consideration of the material evidence on record. He has also placed reliance in Kalpataru Vidya Samasthe and another v. S.B. Gupta and another, 2005 7 SCC 524 and Kushro S. Gandhi and others v. N.A. Guzderd (dead), 1970 AIR(SC) 1468.