The court upheld the Tribunal's award, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Section 19, confirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction and decision-making process regarding construction claims.

Order :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (the Act), the present Civil Revision has been filed by the Petitioners/State authorities calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the Award dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (the Tribunal) in Reference Case No.42/2005 filed by M/s B.S.B.K. Pvt. Ltd., i.e., the Respondent herein.

2. By impugned Award dated 8.1.2007, the Tribunal while partly allowing the said reference petition, has passed an award of Rs.75,66,064.65 together with interest @ 6% per annum from 16.2.1996 on the balance amount of T.D.R. of Rs.21,94,966/- till the date of award has been passed in favour of Respondent herein and against the Petitioners herein, along with further interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till its realization together with proportionate cost of the reference petition.

3. On 10.12.1990, the work of ‘construction of Power House Building at the toe of Power Dam Blocks 15 to 17 of Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Dam’ was awarded to the Respondent by the Petitioners/State authorities. On 19.12.1990, the work order was issued to the Respondent. The time allotted for completion of work was 32 months including rainy reason and 35% of the work was to be done in 8 months, 70% of the work in 20 months and the whole work was to be completed in 32 months. To this, the Respondent also submitted its construction programme for the working season up to June, 1991 and further construction programme was submitted by the Respondent on 17.1.1992 and 21.2.1992. Construction programme to complete the work was also prepared and submitted to complete the whole work by July, 1993. Construction programme to complete the balance of work before June, 1994 was submitted, up to which extension was also applied by the Respondent, which was given by the Chief Engineer to complete the work till 30.6.1994. Ultimately, the work was completed on 7.1.1994. However, the Respondent raised a dispute under Clause 51 of GC-30, which was rejected by the Superintending Engineer leading to the filing of the reference petition under Section 7-B of the Act before the Tribunal claiming amount under various heads. Petitioners/State filed their written statement stating that the Respondent is not entitled for the claims made by it and the reference petition be rejected. On 14.11.2005, the reference petition was partly amended.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal, by impugned Award dated 8.1.2007, though rejected the claim of the Respondent with respect to empty jute bags, additional curing, difference in cost of bought out items, compensation against losses suffered due to prolongation of contract and refund of withheld/recovered amount on account of any energy charges, but granted the claim for extra rate for extra items to the tune of Rs.1,78,397/- (after 1.5% discount), the claim for extra rate for extra items qua excavation hard rock with controlled blasting, wet percussion drilling for anchor rod fixing, PVC water stop, preparation of old surface to the tune of Rs.34,31,086.64/- (after 1.5% discount) towards increase of work by 30% and also granted an amount of Rs.16,80,133/- (after 1.5% discount) for decrease in work by 30%, along with claim for interest on delayed payments to the tune of Rs.81,482/-, claim for amount towards final bill and refund of T.D.R. to the tune of Rs.21,94,966/-, with 6% interest from 16.2.1996 till the date of award, thereby awarding total Rs.75,66,064.65/- in favour of M/s B.S.B.K. Pvt. Ltd., i.e., Respondent herein.

5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Petitioners/State, submits that the impugned Award has not been passed in accordance with law and the Tribunal has committed the jurisdictional error. Once the rates for extra items are not mutually agreed as per Clause 32 of GC-18, it ought to have been decided in accorda