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 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 CIVIL REVISION No. 1312 of 2002 MUNSHIRAM SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF M.P. & ORS Appearance:

Shri Shekhar Sharma Senior Advocate with Shri Dhruv Singh And Abhay Pratap Singh - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Ritwik Parashar - Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER Per: Justice Pradeep Mittal This Civil Revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is directed against the award dated 31.07.2002 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 71/1999, whereby the respondents were directed to pay Rs. 82,852/- to the petitioner. The respondents were further directed to pay pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs. 65,889/- from 16.07.1999 till the date of realization.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm having several years of experience in the field of civil construction and had undertaken the construction of a Middle School building at Bagwara, Nasrullaganj Tehsil, District Sehore. The agreement was registered as Sl. No. 62/DL/94-95. The respondent invited tenders in Standard PWD Form ‘A’ vide NIT No. 45/93- 94 issued on 12.04.1993, and the tenders were opened on 16.04.1993. The probable cost of the contract as shown in the NIT was Rs. 3,30,500/-, and the stipulated period for completion of the work was eight months, including the rainy season.The petitioner submitted his tender at 7.48% above the SOR applicable to the West Zone of the Public Works Department. The tender was recommended by the Superintending Engineer and was accepted on 28.01.1994. The Superintending Engineer formally accepted the petitioner’s tender vide letter dated 23.04.1994, and the Executive Engineer communicated the acceptance on the same date. Thereafter, after execution of the agreement, the work order was issued on 01.12.1994.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs. 1,02,782/- towards escalation charges. The learned Tribunal rejected a part of this claim on the ground that there was no escalation clause in the agreement. It was held that since the stipulated period of the contract was less than 12 months, Clause 11(c) relating to escalation stood scored out, and consequently, the petitioner was held not entitled to escalation charges. The learned Tribunal has grossly erred in arriving at this conclusion, as the petitioner’s contentions, both on facts and in law, were not properly appreciated.

4. It is submitted that the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) is merely an offer. The contract comes into existence only when the contractor submits the tender, the same is accepted by the competent authority, and sanction is accorded by such authority. In the present case, the tender was opened by the Executive Engineer and thereafter forwarded to the competent authority, namely the Superintending Engineer, for acceptance or rejection. The acceptance or rejection is thereafter communicated to the Executive Engineer as well as to the contractor. Only upon such acceptance does the contract stand concluded.

5. The learned Tribunal, either due to oversight or misconception of law, failed to take into consideration the letter of the Superintending Engineer dated 23.02.1994. Instead, it simply relied upon the statement of the Executive Engineer that Clause 11(c) had been scored out from the tender document. The learned Tribunal also failed to appreciate that the said letter dated 23.02.1994 was duly admitted in evidence by the Officer-in-Charge of the respondent. As a matter of fact, at the time of acceptance of the tender, the Superintending Engineer himself signed the said letter (Form–A / Prapatra) and incorporated Clauses 21 and 22 in his own handwriting, whereby the stipulated period of the contract was extended from eight months to twelve months, excluding the rai