G.V.RATHORE Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1983") preferred by the applicant against the award dated 15-2-2006 passed by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (for short "the Adhikaran") in reference petition No. 16/2005 whereby Nos. 6 1,00,116/-, a part of the claim refusing remainder has been awarded in favour of the applicant.

(2.) Briefly stated facts are that the applicant was awarded work of remodeling of Mahanadi main canal from 50 KM to 56.38 KM group No. 1 vide written agreement No. 3/DL of 1982-83. The work contract was awarded under written agreement. As per the nomenclature of the work, the applicant had to do excavation in all types of soil alone, but most of the reaches were rocky strata and unless the rocks are excavated it was not possible for him to maintain the desired base of the progress of assigned work, therefore, he requested the authorities for removal of pitching stones so that the work may be taken up in proper sequence and also asked for layout. The applicant gave his willingness to do the extra work, i.e., excavation in DR, SR & HR at the rate of 69% above the USR with separate payment and on assurance given by the non-applicant No. 2 did excavation in rocky strata. Applicant's work was checked and measured, but the extra item of DR and SR was not valued at applicant's quoted rate of 69% above the USR. Applicant also did work of spoil cutting, but his work was not valued at a rate of 69.41% above the USR. As a result of those, applicant suffered short payment of Rs. 8,09,309=20 and Rs. 1,25,095=00 respectively. Towards check and dressing State reduced the payment to Rs. 1,57,830=75. His total work was not measured and his contract was repudiated by the State Government thereby he sustained loss of Rs. 61,120=00 and Rs. 60,000=00 respectively.

(3.) The claim was not settled amicably; therefore, the dispute was referred to the then Chief Engineer, who was appointed as Sole Arbitrator in terms of the contract, who passed award. Dissatisfied with the award, the same was questioned by both the parties before the District Judge, Raipur. The District Judge, Raipur, set aside the award. Thereafter the Chief Engineer by his letter dated 25-7-1990 directed the applicant to submit the reference petition before the Arbitration Tribunal and accordingly reference was moved.