ORDER

Per: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva

1. Since the controversy involved in these petitions are identical, they are being heard and decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts and grounds stated in Misc. Petition No.7073 of 2024 are taken into consideration.

2. Petitioner impugns order dated 12.8.2024, whereby the Reference Petition filed by the petitioner under section 7 of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation.

3. Petitioner was awarded a works contract on 4.9.2012. Certain disputes arose in reference to the works contact and the contract was terminated on 27.11.2014. The contract contains a clause for dispute redressal in clause 24, which reads as under:

"24. Dispute Redressal System : If any dispute or| difference of any kind whatsoever shall arises in connection with or arising out of this Contract or the execution of Works or maintenance of the Works thereunder, whether before its commencement or during the progress of Works or after the termination, abandonment or breach of the Contract, it shall, in the first instance, be referred for settlement to the competent authority described along with their powers in the Contract Data, above the rank of the Engineer. The competent authority shall, within a period of forty five days after being requested in writing by the Contractor to do so, convey his decision to the Contractor. Such decision in respect of every matter so referred shall, subject to review as hereinafter provided. be final and binding upon the Contractor. In case the Works is already in progress, the Contractor shall proceed with the execution of the Works, including maintenance thereof, pending receipt of the decision of the competent authority as aforesaid, with all due diligence."

4. In terms of clause 24, in cases any dispute a difference of any kind whatsoever arises in connection with or out of the contract or execution of work or maintenance of work, whether before its commencement, during the progress or after termination. In the first instance, it is to be referred for settlement to the competent authority and the competent authority was obliged to with, within a period of 45 days, after being requested in writing to convey decision to the contractor and such decision shall be final and binding.

5. A protest petition was filed by the petitioner against the termination of contract, which was rejected by the competent authority on 23.2.2015. The Tribunal has noticed that petitioner had filed an undated copy of the quantified claim addressed to the final authority under Clause 24 of the contract, though there is no date of the receipt of quantified claim, a letter dated 23.7.2017 sent by the final authority mentions the date of submission of the quantified claim as 20.12.2015 under Clause 24 of the contract and the same was pending on that date.

6. Reference may be had to section 7-B of the Adhiniyam, 1983.

“7-B. Limitation.-(1) The Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless-

(a) the dispute is first referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract; and

(b) the petition to the Tribunal is made within one year from the date of communication of the decision of the final authority:

Provided that if the final authority fails to decide the dispute within a period of six months from the date of reference to it, the petition to the Tribunal shall be made within one year of the expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where no proceeding has been commenced at all before any Court preceding the date of commencement of this Act or after such commencement but before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990, a reference petition shall be entertained within one year of the date of commencement of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990