ORDER P. N. S. Chouhan, J. - This order will also dispose of C.R. No. 133 of 1989 (M/s. R. S. Bajwa v. State of M.P.). 2. M/s. R. S. Bajwa & Company, Bilaspur, M.P., the non-applicant in C.R. No. 60/89, was awarded a contract for excavation in soils and rocks for the Power House Pit and Tale race channel group VII at Hasdeo Bango dam site, under agreement No. 13/DL of 1981-82. Estimated cost of work was Rs. 64.76 lacs, but the cost as per contract was Rs. 1,10,320.59. The period of contract was eighteen months excluding rainy season. Work order was issued on 30.3.1982. Stipulated date for completion of work was 30.5.1984. The contractor was granted time upto 30.6.1985. Second extension was granted upto 31.3.1986 and third extension upto 30.6.1986 was also granted. Thus, the work was completed twenty-five months after the stipulated date. The representations made by the contractor to the Super-intending Engineer were rejected. The contractor then laid claim of Rs. 51,72,453/- under various heads, namely, infructuous overheads, loss of profits, silt clearance, extra lead, controlled blasting, error in face coil rates, loss of interest and lump sum deduction. The M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 71/87 awarded Rs. 5,000/-, to the contractor vide impugned award dated 19.10.1988. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation was also allowed. Rest of the claim on items No. 3, 5 and 6 were rejected. The contractor had himself withdrawn claim on items No. 1, 2, 7 and 8, C.R. No. 60/89 has been presented by the State Government claiming modification in the award to the extent of rejection of claim on item No. 4. In the connected C.R. No. 133/89 the contractor has claimed sums under the items rejected by the learned Tribunal. 3. Shri V. R. Rao, learned counsel for the contractor could not point out any jurisdictional error, illegality, material irregularity or misconduct to warrant interference in the award in his favour. In result, the contractor's revision, C.R. No. 133/89 fails and is hereby dismissed. 4. As per the State revision is concerned, asking for rejection of contractor's claim in item No. 4, facts are thus : In the agreement the dumping point of boulders at the dam site was specified. In result, the contractor's revision, C.R. No. 133/89 fails and is hereby dismissed. 4. As per the State revision is concerned, asking for rejection of contractor's claim in item No. 4, facts are thus : In the agreement the dumping point of boulders at the dam site was specified. Naturally, therefore, the contractor had quoted the rates taking into account the lead upto that point. Subsequently, the Engineer-in-charge changed this point of dumping. The changed point of dumping was at a higher gradient involving a hair pin curve and therefore increase in expenditure. The claim in item No. 4 involves extra expenditure which the contractor had to incur on account of this change in dumping site by the Engineer-in-charge. Nothing could be shown by the learned Government Advocate to hold the approach of the learned Tribunal in this behalf to be erroneous. We, therefore, hold that there is no substance in C.R. No. 60/89 filed by the State. In result, both these revisions are hereby rejected.