A procedural failure of the Superintending Engineer does not negate a petitioner's entitlement to appeal, provided the requisite timelines for reference and appeals are respected.

1. Petitioner vide this Revision under S.19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for brevity "Adhiniyam, 1983") takes exception to the Award dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Madhyastham Adhikaran, whereby while finding the petitioner entitled for Award of Rs.25,84,203/-, non - suited the petitioner on the finding that the Appeal is not in consonance with the stipulations contained under Clause 29 of the Agreement, as such not tenable under S.7B of the Adhiniyam, 1983.

2. Relevant facts giving rise to controversy briefly are that the petitioner entered into works contract with respondents on 02.01.2009 for construction of Kunwarpur to Burda road under district Shivpuri under CRF Scheme. The amount of tender was Rs.665.00 lacs. The tender was accepted @ 14.30% below schedule of rates (SOR) = Rs.569,90,500.00; work order was issued on 02.01.2009. The completion period was 16 months to be reckoned after 30 days of issue of work order as per Clause 2 of Agreement No. 100/2008-09. The due date of completion was scheduled as on 31.05.2010. As the work could not be completed within the scheduled time, an extension was sought which was turned down and respondent opted to terminate the contract under Clause 3(C) of the Agreement. The contract was rescinded on 23.02.2011. Petitioner invoked Clause 29 of the Agreement requesting the Superintending Engineer to allow the claims for losses and damages to the petitioner through its letter dated 28.02.2011. Superintending Engineer rejected all claims by his order dated 16.06.2011. Aggrieved petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Chief Engineer on 23.06.2011. As the Chief Engineer did not decide the Appeal, the petitioner after waiting for six months and before expiry of one year filed reference petition before the Madhyastham Adhikaran on 16.10.2012. The Adhikaran vide impugned Award though held the petitioner entitled for the amount as find mention in paragraph 12 of the Award, yet non - suited the petitioner as the reference was not found maintainable as per Clause 29 of the Agreement.

3. The reasons find mention in paragraph 8 of the Award, wherein the Adhikaran observed: -
8.(i) First and the foremost objection of the respondents is that the reference petition being in contravention of clause 29 of the contract agreement is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the larger bench of the High Court of M.P. in the light of the decision rendered in Sanjay Dubey v. State of M.P. , 2012 (4) MPLJ 212 . The petitioner in paragraph 6 of the reference petition has averred in specific that the dispute arose on 23.2.2011 when the Respondent No. 2 took action under clause 3(c) of the contract agreement. The petitioner being aggrieved by it, submitted dispute and quantified claim before the S.E. on 28.2.2011. The reminder was also issued on 08.03.2011. The S.E. rejected all the claims vide office letter dated 16.06.2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal against it before the C.E. on 23.06.2011, which according to the petitioner, was lying unattended at the time of filing of the reference petition on 17.10.2012.
(ii) The respondents submitted that the petitioner having acted in contravention of clause 29 of the contract agreement, the reference petition is not maintainable in view of the decision in Sanjay Dubey's case (supra).
The relevant portion of clause 29 runs as under: -
"Arbitration Clause
Clause 29 - Except as otherwise provided in this contract all question and dispute relating to the meaning of the specifications designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to