Narottam Rawat vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

The instant petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution seeks quashment of impugned order dated 18/11/2019

Annexure P/3 by which the respondents have informed the petitioner that the agreement executed with the petitioner as regards the work of

construction of 100 seater Kasturba Gandhi Hostel, Rampur Tenk, block, Bamori in District Guna has been cancelled and that the petitioner is free to

withdraw his security amount.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondents had entered into an agreement vide P/1 for the aforesaid work. The

said agreement contains two relevant clauses i.e. clause-12 & 22, which are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-

12.Dispute Resolution System

12.1 No dispute can be raised except before the Competent Authority as defined in Contract Data in writing giving full description and grounds of

dispute. It is clarified that merely recording protest while accepting measurement and/or payment shall not be taken as raising a dispute.

12.2 No dispute can be raised after 45 days of its first occurrence. Any dispute raised after expiry of 45 days of its first occurrence shall not be

entertained and the Employer shall not be liable for claims arising out of such dispute.

12.3 The competent authority shall decide the matter within 45 days.

12.4 Appeal against the order of the Competent Authority can be preferred within 30 days to the Appellate Authority as defined in the Contract Data.

The Appellate Authority shall decide the dispute within 45 days.

12.5 Appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority can be preferred before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Madhya

Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

12.6 The Contractor shall have to continue execution of he Works with due diligence notwithstanding pendency of a dispute before any authority or

forum.

No compensation for alterations in or restriction of work to be carried out.

22.1 If at any time after the commencement of the work, the Engineer-in-charge, for any reason whatsoever, not require the whole or any part of the

work as specified in the bid to be carried out; the Engineer-in-charge shall give notice in writing of the fact to the Contractor and withdraw that whole

or any part of the work.

22.2 The contractor shall have to claim to any payments or compensation whatsoever, on account of any profit or advantage which he might have

derived from the execution of work in full or on account of any loss incurred for idle men and machinery due to any alteration or restriction of work

for whatsoever reason.

22.3 The Engineer-in-charge may supplement the work by engaging another agency to execute such portion of the work, without prejudice to his

rights.

A bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses reveals that petitioner has agreed upon the condition that the Engineer-in-charge may withdraw the work at

any point of time after execution of the agreement on giving notice. However, that clause 12 provides for detailed “Dispute Resolution Systemâ€

which is an inhouse remedy available to the petitioner for raising any dispute stemming from the agreement.

Admittedly, the petitioner has not raised any dispute.

In view of nature of dispute which involves disputed questions of fact and the petitioner having agreed to for an in house remedy of resolution and

arbitration, this Court declines interference and relegates the petitioner to avail the said remedy which if raised within a period of 30 days from today

along with copy of this order, shall be entertained and decided by the authority empowered as per Clause 12 of the agreement without being dismissed

on limitation alone.

With the above said liberty, the present petition stands disposed of.