A claim petition is not premature if the contractor has demonstrated through documentary evidence that outstanding payments have been withheld for a considerable time and that he has made positive demands for payment.

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In this Civil Revision preferred under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam'), the State of M. P. through its officers call in question the justifiability of the award passed by M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in reference case No. 49/89 awarding Rs. 2,91,722.50/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 13-6-1989 in favour of the respondent.

2. The facts as have been adumbrated in the award are that the respondent, a registered firm entered into an agreement with State of M. P. for construction of Deo River Acquaduct at C.H. 2658 of Main Canal, Dhuty L.B.C. The petitioners' tender rates which were accepted 32.09% above CSR by the owner, worked out to Rs. 22,92,781/-. The time allowed for completion of work was 18 months excluding rainy season from 1st, July to 30th, September. The work order was issued by the owner on 19-12-1988. The Chief Engineer during his inspection of the work on 6-4-1987 directed certain changes in the designs and drawings of the foundation of the two central piers from 'well sinking' to 'open foundation'. By that time the claimant had already made all requisite arrangements for 'well sinking' by spending a sum of Rs. 2.0 lacs. Because of this change in the design, huge dewatering was involved. The item of dewatering for 'open foundation' of central piers was treated by the Department as an Extra item of work. But under the instructions of the Chief Engineer a recovery of Rs. 1.43 lacs was to be made as the said amount was paid towards dewatering to the contractor/respondent. It was putforth before the Tribunal that as per the agreement metal was to be collected from specified Dahedi Quarry with a lead of only 5 kms. The metal was available in the said quarry. On request being made for grant of permission to bring the metal from another quarry i.e. Kayadi involving extra lead, the same was given to the claimant. However, the rate of extra lead of metal was not decided by the Department. It was also stated in the claim petition that extra work of filling foundations around the masonry including watering and ramming was not included in the Schedule (G) of the agreement. However, the Department considered the said work to be necessary and got the same executed through the claimants. The extra rates for the said item of work were recommended by the departmental authorities to the Chief Engineer but no decision was taken at the level of the Chief Engineer. After expiry of the stipulated date, extensions prayed for the respondent were granted to him upto 18-3-1989 and thereafter, he was allowed to continue the word without formal extension. It was setforth by the claimant-contractor that departmental authorities had recommended his claim for expenses incurred by him because of change of design, dewatering for 'open foundation' work of central piers treating the same as an extra item of work; extra rates for extra lead of metal and extra rates for work of filling foundation. The aforesaid claims were duly referred to the Superintending Engineer on 13-4-1989 for his decision. Besides the aforesaid claim compensation was claimed due to belated change in designs and drawings, non-supply of detailed working drawing and other necessary designs. Asseverating these facts the claimant putforth a claim for a sum of Rs. 5,06,216/- along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum under section 7 of the Adhiniyam.

3. The present respondents before the Tribunal, entered contest stating, inter alia, that the claims were premature because they were pending for decision before the competent authority and further, the petitioner had not complied with the requirements of the agreement by submitting all the claims after quantifying them before the Superintending Engineer in the first instance. It was further pleaded by them that Rs. 1,43,618/- was inadvertently paid to the claimant and Rs. 19,95