B.HIMMATLAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner feels aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondent no.5, in the matter of taking up for arbitration dispute regarding termination of a contract granted for the purpose of construction of road. Petitioner filed an application under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 before the respondent no.5 by way of a reference. The respondent no.5 tribunal after examining the matter found that the said reference application is premature, as cause of action for the dispute has not risen and returned the reference with a direction for invoking the jurisdiction after cause of action arisen. However, it seems instead of seeking reference of the disputes on the apprehension that due some delay, the tribunal may not entertain the reference and without invoking the remedy as contemplated under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, this writ petition was filed and the prayer made in the writ petition reads as under:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents have opposed grant of the prayer as made in the petition on the ground of its maintainability and say that without invoking the jurisdiction of the tribunal and without explaining the delay, in seeking even reference in the writ petition, the petition before this Court is not maintainable. It is stated that the delay is not reasonably explained in this writ petition and therefore, the delay cannot be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that at least the reference should have been sought with a prayer for condonation of delay in accordance with law and without following the said procedure, this petition is not maintainable.

(3.) We find that the petitioner has a grievance and the dispute in question is subject to the jurisdiction of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, that being so the petitioner should have invoked the jurisdiction available under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam and sought a reference before the tribunal and also should have prayed for condoning the delay in seeking reference. Thereafter, it was for the tribunal to examine the matter and then to proceed in accordance with law. In view of the jurisdiction of this Court, writ jurisdiction was not permissible and therefore, the objection raised by the respondents has to be upheld.