STATE OF ORISSA Vs. P C CHANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State of Orissa against the judgment of the subordinate Judge of [puri refusing to set aside an awardl dated 27th April 1956 and passing a judgment and decree in terms of that award in favour of the respondent

(2.) THE respondent was a contractor who agreed to construct four bridges on the lewis Road in Bhubaneswar for a lump sum contract of Rs. 7,58,000/ -. The terms of the contract were put in writing (See Ex. A ). The length of the 4 bridges, as shown in the contract, is as follows : (i) Bridge over Gangua-520 ft. ; (ii) Bridge at 2m-2140 ft-40 ft: (iii) Bridge at 2m-2715 ft-100 ft; and (iv) Bridge at 2m-4992 ft100 ft Clause 7 of the Conditions of Contract authorises the Executive Engineer to make additions, omissions or variations to the works and further stipulates that for such additions omissions Or variations extra sums may be added or deducted from the amount of the contract "at rates in accordance with the sanctioned schedule of rates in force at the time when a particular item or work was commenced". Clause 19 is the usual arbitration clause to the effect that if there is a dispute between the con-tractor and the Executive Engineer it may be referred to an arbitrator to be chosen by the parties to the contract. Soon after the commencement of the work the contractor was informed by the Engineer that bridges 2 and 3 mentioned above need Work the constructed and that these should be omitted from the contract. In a subsequent letter, Ext. B dated the 20th april 1949 the contractor was informed that on account of the omission of the aforesaid two bridges deduction would be made from the total amount payable to the contractor at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per running foot the exact length of the two bridges omitted was shown in that letter as; 2nd bridge-49 ft. and 3rd bridge 106 it-total 149 ft Apparently this deduction at Rs. 1200/- per running foot was made on the basis of clause 7 of the Conditions of contract which allowed deduction to be made in respect of "omissions" at the scheduled rates in force. The contractor, however did not accept this interpretation of the word "omission" in clause 7. According to him the 'omissions' referred to therein related to minor omissions in respect of particular items connected with the construction of the 4 bridges and could not include the omission of the two out of the 4 bridges. Hence, after the completion of the work there was a dispute between. the parties and as they did not agree on an arbitration an application was made to the Subordinate judge, Puri for the appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 8 (2) of the arbitration Act. The learned Subordinate Judge, by his order dated 11th March 1954, in M. C. no. 176 of 1953 appointed one Mr. T. if. Dixon, Superintending. Engineer, construction Circle, Central P. W. D. as the Arbitrator by his order dated 11th march 11954 (Ext. 1) and sent him a letter of appointment.

(3.) THE Advocate General's grievance about the omission on the part of the arbitrator to take oral evidence is also equally untenable. (After discussing the evidence the judgment proceeded): from the statement as given in the award and also from the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses I must hold that the Arbitrator had followed the rules of natural justice in conducting the proceedings and that the State of Orissa was not in any way prevented from leading all available evidence bearing on the subject.