MAHAVIR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is filed by unsuccessful applicant/petitioner under section 19 of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Adhiniyam) against the award dated 1-11-1989 passed by the M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 55/87 filed under section 7 Adhiniyam.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that on 25-1-1984, Item-rate-tenders were invited for construction of 13 Nos. of new structures and remodelling of Mahanadi Main Canal from RD 87,000 M to RD 97,000 M. Only two tenders were received, one by petitioner on 24-6-1984 with 177. 27% above U. C. S. R. and other by M/s B. K. Agrawal with 231. 85% above U. C. S. R. It is also admitted that petitioner had submitted a letter Ex. P/1-A dated 24-6-1984 addressed to Superintending Engineer along with tender documents which contained certain conditions but this letter was withdrawn unconditionally by a letter Ex. P/2-A dated 17-7-1984. The tender of the petitioner being low was accepted on 29-1-1985, the intimation of which was given to the petitioner by Executive Engineer vide his letter Ex. P/5 dated 22-2-1985. A contract agreement No. 1/d-1 of 84-85 (Article 'o') was executed on 15-3-1985. The work order was issued on 15-3-1985. This contract was for an amount of Rs. 1,48,95,683. 00. It is also not disputed that the petitioner after starting the excavation work enquired about the borrow areas for soil. The Executive Engineer vide letter Ex. D/8 dated 24-8-1985 informed the petitioner that the excavation included all the leads and lifts and hence question of showing the borrow areas did not arise. The petitioner demanded payment for extra lead. It was not accepted. On this, the petitioner filed a claim under section 7 of the Adhiniyam for a period upto 30-6-1987 for an amount of Rs. 51 lakhs (giving up claim of Rs. 15 lakhs) for extra lead of earth with interest and costs thereon.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner was that it quoted rates in the tender for item A-1 (earth work) with this understanding that the borrowing areas would be provided by the Department within free lead distance of 50 meters. The petitioner vide letter Ex. P/1-A dated 24-6-1984 submitted with the tender-documents sought clarification regarding assumption as to the availability of soil within free lead distance which was confirmed by the Chief Engineer vide his office letter Ex. P/4-A dated 17-7-1984. The Accounts Officer also sent Superintending Engineer's memo of clarification Ex. P/3-A with Ex. P/4-A. The officers of the respondents gave assurances to the petitioner that soil would be available in free lead area. The inter se correspondence between the Departmental Officers also confirmed this assumption. Acting on such assurances and representations, the petitioner executed the contract agreement. When the petitioner started work no soil was made available in the free lead area. The petitioner had to bring soil from distant Government quarry in which he had to incur huge additional expenditure. The respondents are legally bound to reimburse the extra expenditure incurred by the petitioner. When the respondents ultimately refused to make payment of the amount stated above, the petitioner filed a claim under section 7 of the Adhiniyam before the Tribunal.