STATE OF M P Vs. KAMAL KISHORE SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the dispute is referred to the Larger Bench by the Division Bench on the question whether the judgment in the case of Lachmandas v. State of M. P. 2000 (3) MPLJ 21 has rightly held that there is no period prescribed for approaching Superintending Engineer for deciding the dispute under the works contract and whether period mentioned in the works contract is administrative in nature.

(2.) IN the case of Lachmandas (supra) Division Bench has held that reading the arbitration agreement and the Adhiniyam together, it is crystal clear that limitation for approaching the Tribunal under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam commences from the date of communication of decision of the Final Authority. No period has been prescribed for approaching the Superintending Engineer for deciding the dispute under Section 7- B of the Adhiniyam. The period of 30 days prescribed in the contract agreement is administrative in character and there is no period prescribed for approaching the Executive Engineer under the Adhiniyam. Therefore, period spent before the Executive Engineer will not be counted towards limitation under the Adhiniyam.

(3.) IT may be pointed out that Division Bench has not considered the amendment in Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam vide Amending Act No. 36 of 1995 w. e. f. 15-12-1995. It appears that the said amendment was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench and the Division Bench has considered the provisions which were brought into amendment, which came into force by Amending Act No. 9 of 90, which came into force w. e. f. 24-4-90. The said amendment was substituted by Amending Act No. 36 of 95 w. e. f. 15-12-1995 in Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam.