SANJAY KISHAN HAUL, J.

( 1 ) A Work Order was issued by the petitioner to the respondent dated 31. 05. 2000 for construction of five retail outlets of the Indian Oil Corporation located at five places viz. Faridpur, Kesarpur and Transport Nagar (T. P. Nagar) in the District Bareilley and Bankatara and Gulamkhera, both in the District of Shahjahanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The letter of award/the agreement was executed on 13. 06. 2000 and the scheduled date of completion stipulated was eighty days. Handing over of the sites took place in phases. Four sites were handed over on 06. 06. 2000 and thus the date of completion was 25. 08. 2000 while one site was handed over on 12. 07. 2000, consequently having the completion date of 30. 09. 2000. Apart from the agreement which provided for the relevant BOQ items, there was a provision for non BOQ items agreed to between the parties as per the terms of the contract. There was delay in the execution of the contract as is apparent from the fact that the work was completed on 31. 10. 2001 with a delay of more than 10 weeks. Final measurements were taken in March, 2002 and the re-conciliation of measurements was done in September, 2002. Extra items were carried out during the execution of the contract and the rates for the same were settled on 07. 08. 2002. The final bill dated 04. 10. 2002 was submitted on 08. 10. 2002. The final bill was to the tune of Rs 1,92,81,990. 62 for BOQ items and Rs 1,05,05,374. 10 for non BOQ items. Thus the total bill submitted was to the tune of Rs 2,97,87,364. 72.

( 2 ) THE bill was passed for Rs 2,88,74,334 and a no claim certificate was issued on 14. 02. 2003 by the respondent. It may be noticed at this stage that the payments were being made from time to time in respect of the running bills raised, albeit belatedly.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, after passing of the final bill, still did not pay the amount but proceeded thereafter to intimate that the amount of liquidated damages would be deducted out of the amount payable. The total amount to be paid after scrutiny of the running bills was Rs. 57,41,541/-, out of which liquidated damages of Rs 28,87,433/- were deducted and thus the remaining amount due was Rs. 28,54,018/ -. This amount admittedly due was also not paid and, in fact, has not been paid till date.

( 4 ) THE respondent not having received the amounts, claimed to be due to them, including the admitted amount, addressed a letter dated 19. 03. 2003 informing the petitioner that despite the work having been completed in all respects on 31. 10. 2001, huge payments were remaining outstanding. It is alleged in the letter that no claim certificate was forwarded to the respondent by the petitioner under the cover of the letter dated 14. 02. 2003 as a condition for release of payment. The said letter states 'under protest'. Despite this, the amount had not been released and thus the respondent was revoking the no claim certificate sent under the cover of the letter dated 14. 02. 2003 and invoked the arbitration clause existing between the parties setting forth the list of claims and disputes as annexure to the letter. The letter dated 19. 03. 2003 was addressed to the Deputy General Manager and project Coordinator of M/s MECON Limited, 14-15th Floor, Scope Minar, laxmi Nagar, Delhi -110 092. The letter was acknowledged at the office of. the petitioner, but it is the case of the petitioner that the same never reached the concerned officer. The petitioner claims that in terms of clause 15. 0 of letter of award, correspondence had to be addressed to the Deputy General manager (Attention:. Mr. A. K. Sharma), MECON Limited at the office of hauz Khas. (It is not disputed that the office at the relevant stage of time when the letter was served had shifted to 14-15th Floor, Scope Minar, Laxmi nagar, Delhi - 110092 ). The petitioner thus claims that the letter was not correctly addressed as it was not made - Attention: Mr. A. K. Sharma. The petitioner on ac