The judgment emphasizes the final authority of the arbitrator, the limited scope of judicial review, and the principle that the Court cannot substitute its own finding for that of the Tribunal.

The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department and its officials have challenged the award dated 25.04.2016 made by Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Patna, under Section 9 of the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008. The award was made in favour of the Opposite Party herein.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records including the counter affidavit and rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners.

3. The petitioners floated a tender for construction and maintenance of road in between Dariyapur Gumati to Bilokhar Road. The Opposite Party was selected as successful bidder. Accordingly, an agreement was executed on 04.12.2009 bearing No.16/SBD/2009-2010. The work was to be completed within a period of one year. However, the work continued even after expiry of the aforesaid period but the petitioners rescind the contract alleging failure on the part of the Opposite Party to complete the work and ordered for forfeiture of security money etc.

4. The matter went up to the Tribunal. The parties contested thereat and finally the Tribunal made an award that Opposite Party-contractor would be entitled to get refund of earnest money of Rs. 3,95,000/- if paid, would be entitled to get back security deposit of Rs. 6,80,041/- with simple interest of 10 % per annum. The Contractor would further be entitled to Rs.6,76,752/-(rupees six lacs seventy-six thousand seven hundred and fifty two only), which was deducted from the running account bills of the opposite party on account of extension of time. This amount was to be paid along with simple interest of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the claim before the Tribunal till realization.

5. Contention of the petitioners is that the contract work was not completed within time. Hence, as per terms and conditions of the contract, the forfeiture was permissible. Therefore, the Tribunal should not have disturbed the same and passed contrary order. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Tribunal has awarded the benefit of contract to the contractor and not the liability arising out of failure of performance of the contract. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another Vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2013) 5 SCC 470 for submission that a party to the agreement cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate at the same time.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that in the counter affidavit the respondents have placed details on the records which would show the reason for non-completion of the work within time, which was mainly attributable against the petitioners for the reason that supply of bitumen within time was not made; rather the same was not made available within the contract period, which would be evident from the latter dated 31.12.2013 at Annexure-3. The work was not completed within time for the reason mentioned in the representation of the petitioner before the authority vide a copy at Annexure-1 to the reply to the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal, wherein the petitioners stated the circumstances under which stone chips could not be lifted because the authority had directed initially to take stone chips from Jamalpur and thereafter from Shankarpur and a different rate was claimed for carrying the said stone chips. Moreover, the award of the Tribunal cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review on the line that Tribunal could have reached at some different conclusion on the basis of material available on the record or on the ground that the Tribunal ignored the terms and conditions between the parties.

7. Contention is that the law is well settled that arbitrator is final authority on the facts of th