ORDER

VIVEK RUSIA, J. :—

The applicant has filed the present Civil Revision under section 19 of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 being dissatisfied with the award dated 30-4-2002 passed by M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Ref. Case No. 97 of 1995.

The applicant is a partnership firm represented by Shri Prabhudayal Agrawal as a partner and constituted attorney. Respondent No. 1 is State Government represented through Water Resources Department and respondent No. 2 is an Executive Engineer, WRD, Khargone, in charge of the project in question.

2. Respondents invited Notice Inviting Tender (In short “NIT”) for the following work :—

(i) Filling of Cut Off Trench (COT), puddle trench, sluice Work and excavation and earthwork of side hereinafter referred to as Group-1. (2) Construction of an earthen dam as part of Bhadwali Tank Project vide NIT No. 4/92/93 dated 10-7-1992 hereinafter referred to as Group-2.

3. The applicant submitted bids for both groups 1 and 2 and found success for the Group-2 work for an estimated value of the contract of Rs. 59.11 Lakhs. Vide letter dated 16-2-1993 the applicant was communicated about acceptance of tender. Thereafter agreement No. 25/92/93 was executed between the parties on 23-3-1993 followed by a work order dated 23-3-1993. The stipulated period of the contract of 9 months excluding 3 months of the rainy season. Although the actual date of completion was 22-3-1994 it was completed on 26-8-1994. The date of the second and final bill was paid on 23-11-1994 to the applicant.

4. The applicant approached under section 7 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 claiming the amount of Rs. 69,92,955/- contending that the Group -1 work was initially awarded to M/s Manikchand Ajmera who failed to complete the work, thereafter the process of re-tendering was initiated in which the applicant and one O. P. Mittal participated. The applicant was found L-2, accordingly, work was awarded to O. P. Mittal who also failed to complete the work. The applicant offered that he is ready to work on Group-1 because, without completion of Group-1, Group-2 cannot be started and completed. Vide letter dated 28-10-1993, the Superintending Engineer, Khargone rejected the offer of the applicant and asked to carry out Group-1 work as additional and extra work under the relevant terms and conditions of Group-2 work. The applicant accepted the aforesaid offer with three conditions namely; (1) Escalation, (2) Extension of completion period up to 31-7-1994 and; (3) this offer would be valid for 45 days.

5. Vide letter dated 9-12-1993, the Executive Engineer rejected the aforesaid offer. Accordingly, vide letter dated 3-12-1993, the applicant agreed to withdraw the aforesaid conditions and agreed to work with Group-1 as additional work as per the terms and conditions of Group-2. Vide letter dated 6-1-1994, respondents accepted the offer and directed the applicant to complete the work of Group-1 and Group-2. The applicant completed the work on 18-6-1992 and thereafter final bill was paid on 23-11-1994.

6. By way of Ref. Case No. 87/1995, the applicant claimed Rs. 69,92,955/- under the following claim :—

1 Claim of Escalation Rs. 7,31,000/- 2 Claim for executing Group No. 1 as per Schedule-1 Rs. 35,28,818.00 3 Claim for interest @ 22% on the delayed payment of final bill as per Schedule-2 up to 17-8-1994 and from 18-8-1994 to 22-11-1994 on the amount of the final bill of Rs. 1,28,84,802, Rs. 7,53,320/- Total Rs. 14,36,528/- 4 Ante-lite Interest @ 22% from 18-9-1994 upto 30-9-1995 on the above three claims amounting to 12,97,603/- Thus he has claimed a total amount of Rs. 69,92,955/-

7. The applicant claimed Rs. 7,31,006/- towards the escalation because Group-2 work was delayed because the work of Group-1 was not completed in time by the earlier contractors. Claim No. 2 for Rs. 35,28,818/- was based on extra work under clause 4.3.13.3 (c). According to the applicant by executing the work of Group-1 quantity exceede