( 1. ) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the pregnability of the Revenue Recovery Certificate (hereinafter referred to as rrc) dated 19-8-99 (Annexure P-1) being void, illegal and against the law. The petitioner has further prayed to declare by appropriate writ or order that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal and without any authority, power and jurisdiction.

( 2. ) AS per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is a B-class contractor. He entered into an agreement with the respondents for construction of Dammari approach road from 0 km. to 3 kms. His tender was accepted being the lowest and he was directed to complete the work within 4 months, i. e. , upto 30-9-1984. The petitioner commenced his work from 1-4-1984 and looking to the approaching rainy season completed maximum possible work. The petitioner, on the basis of accepted measurement, submitted his first running bill to the tune of Rs. 3,47,895/which is 80% of the total amount of contract.

( 3. ) AS per the petitioner, the work undertaken by him was earth work collection of morram with boxing, spreading of morram, collection of stone chips and 40 mm B. T. metal. While the measurement of his first bill was being recorded, the petitioner continued to do the work and during that period completed the collection and boxing of balance quantity of morram required. According to him, the work of spreading of morram and stone chips was also done. The petitioner submitted second running bill on 5-1-1985, i. e. , after the rainy season even though the work was done before the rains. It has been pleaded in the petition that the item of spreading of metal chips was not included in this bill and this was accepted to be included and paid in the subsequent bill as the final measurements have been recorded.

( 4. ) THE agony of the petitioner is that without giving any proper notice to him, some fictitious measurement were seen to have been recorded ex-party after 3 1/2 years and on that basis the already recorded quantities were scored out and the newly recorded measurements reduced the quantities. Thus, according to the petitioner it is being said that excess payment has been made to him.

( 5. ) THE respondents adjusted the security deposit made by the petitioner towards the said excess payment so made and the balance has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner and for that respondent No. 4 has issued a RRC under the provisions of Section 146 of the Madhya Pradcsh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Copy of the RRC dated 19-8-1999 vide recovery of Rs. 1,27,014/- has been placed on record as Annexure P-l. Indeed the petitioner has challenged this RRC.

( 6. ) IT has also been set forth in the petition that the petitioner also made certain counter claims against the respondents and for the realizing of the same he filed an application before the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran, Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the Adhikaran) which was registered as Reference Case No. 204/1991. However, the said proceedings were dismissed by the Adhikaran on 17-12-96, as per the petitioner his Counsel reported no instructions.

( 7. ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government did not file any application before the said Adhikaran for the adjudication and it is trying to recover the alleged losses byway of RRC. It has been further contended by Shri Adhikari. the learned Counsel that RRC to the tune of Rs. 1,27,014/- dated 19-8-99 (Annexure P-l) is void, illegal and arbitrary for the simple reason that the State Government is not entitled to recover the said amount getting the matter adjudicated by the Adhikaran. The learned Counsel has submitted that unless the question of breach is decided by an independent agency, the respondents are not entitled to recover any sum of amount from him. In support of his contention the learned Counsel has placed reli