RECONDO LIMITED Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia has challenged the validity of action of the respondents in seeking to recover the amount in question from the petitioner by issuing Revenue Recovery Certificate. The petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to refer the matter to Arbitration Tribunal.

(3.) Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on the business of construction of roads. The petitioner entered into a contract with the State Government for several works for widening of National Highway. As per Clause 29 of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents, the dispute arising out of contract has to be referred to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran. However, by a letter dated 11.08.2005, the Executive Engineer directed recovery of amount of Rs. 85,07,464/- from the petitioner. Thereafter the Executive Engineer issued Revenue Recovery Certificate to the extent of Rs. 85,07,464/- and sent the same to the Collector for recovery of the same from the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioner has approached this Court.