Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. & Ors. vs Sunil Kumar Pandey on 17 November, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
1 CR-59-2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 17th 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
2 CR-59-2003
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
3 CR-59-2003
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 filed reference
petition before the Tribunal under Section 7 of M.P. Madhyastham
Adhikaran Adhiniyam claiming the following amount ;-
A. Payment of final bill Rs.9,32,810/- Allowed by the Tribunal.
B Refund of S.D. Rs.1,15,895/- Allowed by the Tribunal.
C Release of E.M. Rs.15,000/- Allowed by the Tribunal.
Interest on the above three Partly allowed by the
D Rs.3,35,566/-
claims Tribunal.
E Overheads Rs.1,18,000/- Rejected by the Tribunal.
Total - 15,17,271/-
5. Respondents appeared with reply and submitted that order by the
then Chief Engineer was given to the petitioner for extra work, therefore,
there is no question of any formal sanction. They have submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
4 CR-59-2003
petitioner failed to observe the terms of agreement and acted in violation of
the terms of the agreement. The petitioner failed to submit construction
programme and also failed to complete the work within the stipulated time
and the work remained incomplete. The petitioner also failed to apply and
obtain extension of time for completion of the remaining work of seepage
drain and boundary trench in the tendered reaches. The petitioner deliberately
left the difficult work. They have denied that the petitioner completed the
total quantity required to be done in the tendered reaches. The excavation of
seepage drain and boundary trench remained unattended. They have further
submitted that the petitioner performed the work other than that provided in
the agreement at his own risk and has no bearing to the work to be performed
under the agreement. As per respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to
claim any amount for such work done at his own risk and due to anticipated
benefits. Because the contractor has done work in reaches other than the
reaches covered in the agreement, the case was prepared and submitted to the
competent authority for favour of consideration and sanction of this
additional work. The petitioner is not justified in including the quantity of
work not provided in the agreement in the quantity of work done by him for
purpose of "variation-clause". The respondents submitted that the petitioner
is not entitled for payment of the final bill for want of completion of the
work within the stipulated period. The referred bill is a running bill.
Similarly, they submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for refund of
security deposit and release of earnest money on the ground that he failed to
complete the work covered in the agreement.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
5 CR-59-2003
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Tribunal below
failed to appreciate that no verbal order was ever given to the respondent for
execution of any extra work. It is urged that the Tribunal overlooked the fact
that the alleged extra work was carried out by the respondent entirely at his
own risk and without any subsisting contract. It is further submitted that
although the Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer forwarded
the respondent's case to the Chief Engineer, this was done only to safeguard
the respondent's interest; however, since the Chief Engineer did not grant
any sanction, the respondent is not entitled to claim compensation for the
value of the services allegedly rendered.
7. Learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal erred in
applying the principle of quantum meruit to the present case, as the
respondent himself undertook the work without any authority and has
nowhere stated in his claim that, at the time of the alleged verbal order, he
was assured of payment. It is also not the respondent's case that the extra
work was executed without any intention to act gratuitously. Therefore, the
essential ingredients for invoking quantum meruit are completely absent.
8. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that
mere recording of measurements on 19.02.1998 does not establish the
existence of any verbal order by the authorities. Regardless of whether any
order exists or not, the S.D.O. is statutorily required to enter in the
measurement book any work found executed at the site.
9. Learned counsel submits that the Tribunal below also failed to
note that the respondent had not completed the work within the stipulated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
6 CR-59-2003
period and therefore is not entitled to refund of the security amount. It is
lastly submitted that the respondent did not furnish any written
communication to the applicant indicating that he was executing any extra
work pursuant to verbal instructions of the Chief Engineer, thereby further
weakening his claim.
10. To decide this reference following question are raised before us-
(i). Whether the finding of the tribunal are perverse the
evidence on record ?
(ii). Whether the revisional Court has power to re-appreciate the
evidence and reach its own conclusion?
11. On perusal of M.B. No. 12527 Art. 'B', we have observed that
respondents have recorded the 4th and final bill of the petitioner on pages 22
to 24. In this bill, the total quantity executed up to date is 83,351.73 cum.
Out of this quantity 16545.46 cum. is withheld. No reason or explanation is
available on this bill for withholding payment of this quantity, nor is there
any evidence to prove the justification of withholding this amount in the
material on record. The measurements of the work done by the petitioner are
brought forward from page 13 of M.B. No. 12526 (Art. 'C'). This quantity
of work done by the petitioner is duly checked by S.D.O. on 10.5.98 (page
12 of this M.B.). There is no reason to disbelieve that the petitioner had not
executed this quantity of work. Even if the contention of the respondents that
the petitioner has done this work outside the agreement is considered, the
petitioner cannot be denied this payment. The petitioner has failed to prove
that Chief Engineer gave verbal orders in the presence of departmental
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
7 CR-59-2003
officers to carry out works which were not included in the agreement, but the
circumstantial evidence clearly establishes that the department wanted to get
the extra work executed by the petitioner.
12. The E.E. submitted the proposal for according sanction for the
work outside the agreement to C.E. on 17.11.97 (Ex.P-1). He forwarded a
detailed report to the Superintending Engineer on 5.12.98 (Ex.P-8) on the
additional work, in which he reported that additional work was necessary
and the contractor had completed the work on the verbal orders of the then
Executive Engineer within the original contract period. The additional work
was recorded on page 9 and 10 of M.B. No. 12526 and this quantity is
16545.46 cum. The then Executive Engineer checked this work on 26.2.98.
This Executive Engineer also recommended vide his letter to accord sanction
of the additional work as the work was necessary even on that date.
13. This letter also establishes that the department wanted to get the
extra work executed. The Executive Engineer submitted approved copy of
'G' schedule, revised 'G' schedule and the comparative statement of the two
'G' schedules for ready reference of the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer
sought certain clarifications on the subject vide letter dated 10.2.98 (Ex.P-3)
from the S.E. The Chief Engineer again sought explanation of the Executive
Engineer vide letter dated 20.11.98 (Ex.P-7) as to why permission was given
to the petitioner for this extra work and why prior permission of the
competent authority was not obtained.
14. On perusal of these documents, we are of the opinion that the
petitioner was permitted by the Executive Engineer to execute this extra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
8 CR-59-2003
work in anticipation of sanction from the competent authority. The
respondents submitted no documentary proof to establish that the petitioner
was ever stopped from doing the work outside the agreement.
15. During the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued
that petitioner is entitled to use for vehicular traffic. The petitioner has been
repeatedly requesting the respondents vide Ex.P-9, Ex.P-10, Ex.P-11, Ex.P-
12, Ex.P-13, Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16 to make payment of the amounts claimed
and also to release security deposit, but the department seems to be harping
only one tune, namely, that without sanction by the competent authority no
action could be taken. The tone and tenor of the letters repeatedly sent by the
petitioner to the various authorities eloquently point out that the petitioner,
on account of the amount withheld in this case, was undergoing great
hardship.
16. Learned tribunal had discussed the all relevant evidence
produced by the both party and reached the conclusion the petitioner was
permitted by the Executive Engineer to execute this extra work in
anticipation of sanction from the competent authority. The Executive
Engineer submitted approved copy of 'G' schedule, revised 'G' schedule and
the comparative statement of the two 'G' schedules for ready reference of the
Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer sought certain clarifications on the
subject vide letter dated 10.2.98 (Ex.P-3) from the S.E. The Chief Engineer
again sought explanation of the Executive Engineer vide letter dated
20.11.98 (Ex.P-7) as to why permission was given to the petitioner for this
extra work and why prior permission of the competent authority was not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
9 CR-59-2003
obtained. But no explanation has been given by the Executive Engineer
which shown the Chief Engineer sought explanation to avoid the claim of the
petitioner otherwise he can take a action against the his Executive Engineer
who supervised the work. It is not acceptable that the contractor suo-moto
executes the extra work which is not in agreement. After writing the letter
for approval of the extra work, Chief Engineer never asked to stop the extra
work which shown the Chief Engineer gave his oral consent to execute the
extra work. Therefore post approval of the extra work is only the formality
and it's a deemed approval of extra work .In our view there is no perversity
to hold the extra work was done by the contractor by the oral consent of the
Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer. Therefore no force in the argument
taken by the petitioner in his petition.
17. The Revisional power of High court has been conferred under
section 19 of the M.P Madhyastam adhiniyam 1988 as under-
''19. High Court's power of revision.-- 1 [(1)
The High Court may suo motu at any time or
on an application for revision made to it
within three months of the award by an
aggrieved party, call for the record of any
case in which an award has been made under
this Act by issuing a requisition to the
Tribunal and upon receipt of such requisition,
the Tribunal shall send or cause to be sent to
that Court the concerned award and record
thereof : Provided that any application for
revision may be admitted after the prescribed
period of three months, if the applicant
satisfies the High Court that he had sufficient
cause for not preferring the revision with
such period. Explanation.-- The fact that the
applicant was misled by any order, practice
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
10 CR-59-2003
or judgment or the High Court in ascertaining
or computing the prescribed period may be
sufficient cause within the meaning of this
subsection.] (2) If it appears to the High
Court that the Tribunal--
(a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it
by law; or
(b) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so
vested; or
(c) has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally, or with material irregularity; or
(d) has misconducted itself or the
proceedings; or
(e) has made an award which is invalid or has
been improperly procured by any party to the
proceedings, the High Court may make such
order in the case as it thinks fit.
(3) The High Court shall in deciding any
revision under this section exercise the same
powers and follow the same procedure as far
as may be, as it does in deciding a revision
under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (No.5 of 1908). 1 Subs. by
M.P. Act No.19 of 2005 (w.e.f. 29.8.2005).
(4) The High Court shall cause a copy of its
order in revision to be certified to the
Tribunal. Explanation. For the purposes of
this section, an award shall include an
'interim' award."
18. It is well settled position that a revisional court's jurisdiction under
Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 is limited
to reviewing an Arbitral Tribunal's order for specific errors, such as
exercising jurisdiction not vested, failing to exercise jurisdiction, or acting
with material irregularity. The court can only interfere if there is a
jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity, as detailed in the Act.
19. Having examined the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that there
are no jurisdictional errors, acts of misconduct or events of invalidity or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58396
11 CR-59-2003
impropriety in the conduct of proceedings by the Arbitrator in passing the
award. For this reason, this court refrained from exercising its revisional
jurisdiction under Section 19(2) by not interfering with the award passed by
the Arbitral Tribunal.
20. For the reasons stated above, the Civil revision arising out in
Reference Case No. 98/1999 of award dated 18/6/2002 passed by Madhya
Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal Bhopal, is accordingly dismissed.
21. Interim stay order passed on 29/1/2003 is hereby vacated.
22. Parties shall bear their own costs.
23. The Record of Tribunal be sent back with the copy of this order.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Praveen
