IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

th

ON THE 17 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 59 of 2003 THE STATE OF M.P. & ORS.

Versus SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY Appearance:

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Government Advocate for the petitioner/State.

Shri Prabhat Saxena - Advocate for respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal

1. The present civil revision preferred under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, challenging the award dated 18.06.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 98/1999. By the said award, the petitioner’s claim of Rs. 15,17,271/- has been partly allowed, and the respondents have been directed to pay Rs. 11,69,755/- to the petitioner and to release the earnest money of Rs. 15,000/- along with accrued interest. The respondents were also directed to pay pendent lite and future interest @ 12% per annum on Rs. 10,08,409/- from 02.10.1999 till the date of realization.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their respective titles as used before the Tribunal.

3. The admitted facts of the case are that the Executive Engineer, Tawa Canal Division, Seoni Malwa invited tenders for the work of resectioning of main canal from Ch. 1752 to 2130 vide N.I.T. 8 of 96-97. The probable amount of contract was Rs. 19.783 lacs and the time for completion of the work was three months from the date of issue of the work order. The petitioner submitted his offer in Form ‘B’ on 11.4.97 which was the lowest. The respondents accepted the offer and, after drawing Agreement No. 3/DL of 97-98, issued the work order on 14.5.97. The petitioner completed the work except some petty items. The 4th and final bill was prepared by the respondents but payment was not made to the petitioner.

4. The facts of the case in short are that the petitioner deployed enough labour, staff and material to the site of work and started the work of sectioning of canal in the changes mentioned in the agreement. During the progress of work, the respondent ordered him to do extra work for resectioning of canal in chain age from 1915 to 1921, from 1945 to 1953 and from 1969 to 1973 because the condition of the banks in these reaches was very bad. The order was by the Chief Engineer in front of the subordinate officers and the petitioner, having full faith in the Chief Engineer, executed the extra work in anticipation of a formal sanction. The petitioner executed 66,866.5 cum. of earth work in the tendered reaches, which was 3113.5 cum. less than the agreed quantity. As the additional earth work proposed to be done was more than 20% of the estimated quantity, sanction of the competent authority, i.e., Chief Engineer, was necessary. The case for obtaining sanction was prepared by the Executive Engineer / respondent No.

4 and was sent to S.E. / respondent No. 3. The S.E. sent the case to the Chief Engineer / respondent No. 2 duly recommended for sanction. The sanction remained awaited but the petitioner continued the work and completed the extra work also during the allowed period of time to the full satisfaction of the respondents. The total quantity of work done by the petitioner was 83,351.73 cum., which was 13431.73 cum. more than the tendered quantity of 69920 cum., which was only 19.21% above. The respondents prepared the 4th and final bill amounting to Rs. 9.33 lacs which was entered in M.B. No. 12527 Art. ‘B’. The final bill was checked and passed for payment on 25.5.98 but was not paid to the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondents for releasing the payment and gave notices for charging interest if payment was not released immediately vide letters dated 25.5.98, 5.7.98 and 16.7.98. Ultimately, the petitioner submitted the claim petition to S.E. under Clause 4.3.29.2 of the agreement on 1.10.99. The S.E. did not call the petitioner for the disposal of this case and the petitioner fil