The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies despite the existence of the C.G. Madhyastam Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 due to an arbitration clause in the contract.

1.. Heard.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 5-8-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P. (C) No. 3700/2008 dismissing the writ petition challenging the validity of the order of the learned District Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur) dated 5-5-2007 passed in Execution Proceedings No. 1/07 whereby the application of the writ appellant for execution of the award dated 22-8-2006 was rejected with a finding that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to execute the arbitration award.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the writ appellant was given a contract regarding the work of construction of Masonry Dam over flow Block No. 7, 8 & 9 and non - over flow Block No. 10 & 11 with Right Key Wall including R.C.C. Piers, Gallery, Bucket and Bridges etc. of the project namely Shyam (Ghunghutta) Project, Ambikapur under an agreement No. 24 / DL / 82-83 entered between the parties. The period fixed for completion of the contract was 18 months excluding rainy season, however, the writ appellant could not complete the contract work within the extended period also and therefore, the Executive Engineer vide memo dated 15-12-1992 terminated the contract awarded to the writ appellant against which the writ appellant has preferred an appeal before the Superintending Engineer under Clause 51 of the agreement and the Superintending Engineer after hearing the parties disallowed the termination order vide order dated 28-10-1993.

4. After disallowance of the termination order, the writ appellant vide letter dated 26-4-1994 submitted a claim before the respondent for several extra works done during the contract period and when no decision was given by the Superintending Engineer for quite sufficient long time, the writ appellant filed a writ petition before the then High Court of M.P. and the same was disposed of vide order dated 30-4-1998 giving liberty to the writ appellant to file a detailed representation before the respondent authorities for redressal of his grievances.

5. In compliance of the Court - s order the writ appellant submitted his representation, which was rejected on 5-8-1998. Thereafter, the writ appellant again made representation on 10-8-2000 for settlement of disputes as per Clause GC51 of the contract deed, however, when nothing has been communicated to the writ appellant, he again wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer on 3-10-2003 (Annexure P - 3 to the writ petition) mentioning that the Superintending Engineer has failed to give decision till date and as per tender Clause 52 the writ appellant requested for appointment of the Sole Arbitrator for settlement of dispute. The request was reiterated subsequently on 20-11-2003. Vide letter dated 24-11-2003 (Annexure P - 6 to the writ petition) the writ appellant was apprised by the Chief Engineer that the claim of the writ appellant for payment towards extra item is pending and therefore, the request cannot be acceded to. The Chief Engineer further informed the writ appellant that it was decided in the meeting held on 27-9-2003 that the decision taken on 29-5-1995 should remain unchanged. However, with regard to the proposal of appointment of the Sole Arbitrator, it is informed that the same is pending consideration at the level of Government and as such further action was not possible at the level of the Chief Engineer.

6. The writ appellant vide his letter dated 17-3-2005 again requested for settlement under Clause 51 of the agreement and on this representation of the petitioner the Superintending Engineer gave his decision on 28-11-2005