F A CONSTRUCTION Vs. NARMADA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this batch of writ petitions the centripodal issue being same and the question of law that emerges for consideration being similar it was heard analogously and is disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts in W. P. No. 1063/2005 are adumbrated herein.

(2.) THE petitioner, a registered partnership firm, is engaged in doing the job of civil and irrigation works. It entered into an agreement with the Narmada Valley Development Authority (presently known as Narmada Valley Development Department) vide agreement No. 2/dl/2002-2003 for construction of right bank main canal, Group-1. RD 16 KM to RD 20 KM. After acceptance of the tender, as pleaded, work order was issued in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents for providing mark-out and handing over the site for commencement of the work but due to non-response of the respondents the petitioner was compelled to file an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity 'the Act') before the learned District Judge, Jabalpur.

(3.) IT is contended in the petition that time had never been the essence of contract which is visible from the conduct of the respondents and further the delay in execution of the work was on the ground of the reasons which are exclusively attributable to the respondents. The hurdle created in smooth execution of the work was beyond the control of the petitioner as the petitioner-firm did not contravene any of the stipulations of the agreement. Despite the aforesaid obtaining situation the Executive Engineer of the respondents threatened to encash the security deposit, confiscate the entire plant and machinery including the construction material installed/kept at the site alleging that there had been breach of the agreement on the part of the petitioner. It is put forth that threat was given to appropriate the earnest money deposit which was otherwise refundable to the petitioner. The respondents deducted 5% of the amount towards additional security deposit at the time of payment of each running bill. Because of this threat the petitioner preferred an application under Section 9 of the Act praying therein that the respondents be restrained from encashing the security deposit, taking possession and selling of the plant and machinery as also the material stored at the site. A further prayer was also made restraining the respondents from appropriating additional security lying with the petitioner-firm as earnest money deposit. The learned District Judge passed an ad interim injunction directing the parties to maintain 'status quo'. The respondents entered contest and after completion of the pleadings the learned District Judge dismissed the application which formed the subject-matter of MJC No. 22/2004. The impugned order dated 22-2-2004 has been brought on record as Annexure P-3. It is pleaded that the learned District Judge dismissed the application on the foundation that there is a statutory bar of taking cognizance of the dispute in view of the language employed under Section 20 of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short 'the 1983 Act' ).