B B VERMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions common question has been raised with respect to power of respondents to proceed upon recovery or the amount pursuant to cancellation, of the contracts.

(2.) PETITIONER was given different contracts, contract was terminated in writ petition No. 49/99 as per Orders P. 5) dated 10. 7. 96 under clause 4. 3. 3. 3 of the agreement and the balance work was to be got executed at the cost of petitioner. Thereafter an Order (P. 7) was issued for recovery of Rs. 22,70,756/- under clause 4. 3. 38. Petitioner has raisea a dispute before SE in which it was submitted that action of Executive Engineer was illegal, Department is not entitled to charge any amount whatsoever due to termination or contract. Certain other claims were also made. As the matter was not decided within the time, it is stated by learned Sr. Counsel Shri Rohit Arya that an application under M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1993 thereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam") was filed which was pending consideration at the time of filing of petition.

(3.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition assailing the orders of termination of contracts and recovery of amount on the around that action taken by respondent, No. 2 is arbitrary, unconstitutional and unsupported by any detail. There is no adjudication made of the claim of State Govt. as such amount could not be recovered as provided, under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam. Breach of contract requires adjudication by an independent person. A dispute arose between the parties, it ought to have been raised by the State before the Tribunal constituted under the Adhiniyam. Notice of recovery is absolutely illegal, the amount cannot be recovered , cannot be said to amount recoverable as an arrear or land revenue. The respondents cannot be allowed to be Judge in their own cause.