JUDGMENT :

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Does the Arbitration Tribunal, constituted under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have the power to extend the time to satisfy the deficit Court-fee or should the entire Court-fee ought to have been satisfied along with the Application for Reference, as envisaged under Section 7(3) of the said Act to make it a 'fit case for adjudication' as mentioned in Section 7(5) of the Act, treating it as 'mandatory', is the basic question mooted. The verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and directing the Tribunal to restore the Reference Application (rejected for non-satisfaction of the balance Court-fee) to be dealt with on 'merits' as the deficit Court-fee has already been remitted on the date of rejection of the application for restoration, is put to challenge in the said backdrop.

2. A short factual description is necessary to have proper analyzation of the legal questions framed above. The Appellants issued a Tender Notification in connection with the construction of Head-Quarter buildings of the Department of Water Resource and Department of Forest. On coming out successful, the 1st Respondent was awarded the contract, who had to execute the same within 24 months' from the date of award of the work. Agreement was executed on 05.06.2012 and the work order was issued on 06.06.2012, stipulating that the work had to be started on 20.06.2012, thus to be completed on or before 19.06.2014.

3. Because of the inordinate delay and lapses on the part of the 1st Respondent, the Letter of Intent was cancelled on 14.08.2014. In the said circumstances, the EMD/Security Deposit/Bank Guarantee was forfeited, which was sought to be interdicted by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Collector, Raipur. On rejection of the said application, the 1st Respondent moved to the Chief Engineer (E) in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement on 20.08.2014, which came to be rejected. The 1st Respondent then approached the Chief Executive Officer, who also declined interference, pursuant to which, the District Court, Raipur was approached against the said order, which did not turn to be fruitful. The EMD and such other deposits were forfeited and the Bank Guarantee was got encashed.

4. On 27.11.2014, the 1st Respondent approached this Court by filing ARBA/38/2014 for appointment of an Arbitrator. Infact, the Appellants, though initially had turned down the request of the 1st Respondent to appoint a Sole Arbitrator under Clause 25 of the Agreement (as it was not submitted in the prescribed format), an Arbitrator was appointed later, as per order dated 22.01.2015, which was challenged by the 1st Respondent by filing WPC 615/15 before this Court. However, after 3 years, the Petitioner withdrew the said writ petition on 13.07.2018 so as to enable them to proceed in terms of the verdict in Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Another v. L.G. Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors reported in (2012) 3 SCC 495 to pursue the remedy under the Act.

5. After withdrawal of the above writ petition, a Reference Application bearing No.14/2019 was moved by the 1st Respondent before the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, Raipur on 13.12.2018. However, as against the requisite Court-fee of Rs. 17,62,085/-, only a sum of Rs. 99,000/- was paid along with the Reference Application. An application was filed for extension of time to pay the balance Court-fee. It is pointed out by the Appellants that the time was extended thrice (on 03.01.2019, 05.02.2019 and 27.03.2019), despite which the balance Court-fee was not satisfied, under which circumstance, the application for Reference was rejected as per order dated 02.04.2019. On rejection of the application, the 1st Respondent quite strangely satisfied the balance Court-fee of Rs. 16