S S CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred under section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') aggrieved by an order dated 11.8.2003 passed in reference case No. 42/03 dismissing the reference as barred by limitation.

(2.) THE petitioner M/s. S.S. Constructions filed a dispute under section 7 of the Adhiniyam. As per the claim filed the tenders were invited on 16.4.1991 for construction of earth work of main canal for duct portion from RD. 7730M to 8470M of Jobat Project for an estimated amount of Rs. 20.74 lacs. It was to be completed within 11 months including rainy season. Agreement was drawn between the petitioner and the executive engineer. The work order was issued on 21.10.1991. The work was to be completed by 20.9.1992. The work could not be completed in the aforesaid period. The contract was rescinded under clause 4.3.3.3 of the agreement as per order dated 31.5.1993. It was informed to the contractor that remaining work would be completed through debitable agency and extra expenditure would be recovered from the contractor. A demand letter was sent by the respondents on 26.4.2000 for recovery of Rs. 10,42,802/ -. The claimant submitted that respondents delayed the matter, as such they had no legal right to take action under clause 4.3.3.3. The contractor had not abandoned the work and asked for extension and had shown willingness to execute the work. The executive engineer had changed the scope of the work. It was likely to increase the total time of completion by more than 12 months, thus, rescission of the contract was illegal. The letter dated 22.7.1994 of executive engineer was not replied and the agreement had come to end for all time to come, thus, the recovery which was sought to be made was illegal. It was prayed to revoke the demand and to pay final bill and release the security deposit and earnest money, otherwise petitioner would invoke arbitration clause 4.3.29.2. Petitioner filed a monetary claim before the Superintending Engineer on 11.8.2000, for more than in year no communication was received, as such petition was preferred before the Tribunal raising the following claims :

(3.) SHRI Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that the application was hopelessly barred by limitation. It was not the case set up that there was any delay in completion of the work through debitable agency. Order of rescission of the contract was passed on 31.5.1993 and it was made clear that the remaining work would be completed through debitable agency and extra cost incurred would be recovered from the contractor, thus, as per amended section 7 -1 of the Adhiniyam, the maximum limitation was 3 years, that expired on 30.5.1996. consequently the reference case has been rightly dismissed as barred by limitation.