ORDER P. N. S. Chouhan, J. - The dispute relates to interpretation of item No. 9 of Annexure-I, 'G' Schedule of Ghorapachhar tank awarded to the respondent vide agreement No. 8, which is quoted hereunder : Annexure I (BALANCE WORK) 'G' Schedule of Ghorapachhar Tank Schedule of quantities for the Ghora Pachhar tank (Group A) on Ch. O to Ch. 28, Ch, 40 to Ch. 55 and Ch. 56.75 to 60. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ S. No. Item as per Qty. as Unit Rate quoted by tender documents per under contractors in words, in figures (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9. Providing 30 cm. thick hand packed 5318 Cum Rs. Seventy only dry stone pitching of quarried Rs. 70.00 only boulder/stones including laying, packing and finishing, over 15 cm thick layers of quarry spalls including cutting of upstream slope of embankment of proper slopes dressing and laying earth on top of embankment etc. Complete in accordance with specification and as directed by the Engineer-in-charge size of stones may very from 28 cm. to 32 cm. The item rate should include all leads and lifts of all materials. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. The Superintending Engineer according to the contractor's representation directed payment for 45 Cm. thick inclusive 15 Cm. thickens of spall as per standard specification Ex. P. 2, P. 3 and D-1. The Executive Engineer in consequence of the order made payment of Rs. 1,45,574/- on 3-1-1989 for 45 Cm. thickness. Later on this payment was objected vide Ex. D-2 (A) by Accountant General of Madhya Pradesh. Then the Superintending Engineer ordered for recovery in terms of the audit objections and the Executive Engineer recovered Rs. 1,14,280/- from the security deposit. The representation by the contractor to the Superintending Engineer (Ex. F-6) was rejected vide Ex. P-7. Then the contractor files the reference under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter the Act) against this alleged illegal recovery. Vide award dated 8-12-1989 M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (hereinafter the tribunal) contractor's contention was upheld and the recovery was held illegal. Accordingly that part of the recovery which has already made, was ordered to be refunded with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of recovery i.e., 4-7-1989. It is also held that the respondents were not entitled to make any further recovery in this regard. Costs were also allowed to the contractor. Accordingly that part of the recovery which has already made, was ordered to be refunded with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of recovery i.e., 4-7-1989. It is also held that the respondents were not entitled to make any further recovery in this regard. Costs were also allowed to the contractor. The State has challenged this award in this revision filed under Section 19 of the Act. 3. The learned Govt. Advocate, argued that the recovery was made under agreement Clause 4.3.28.1 and 4.3.38.2. At this time of payment of final bill on 3-10-1988 the contractor did not raise any protest in this behalf and therefore the finding that the recovery was bad on account of opportunity having been not afforded to the contractor is not sustainable. Nothing can be stated on the question of competence of Superintending Engineer under the agreement to order refund. Perusal of the award shows that the tribunal was of a view that under the aforesaid clause of the agreement the power to award the recovery of any sum over paid to the contractor vested with State Government and the Superintending Engineer could not under the circumstances of the case use that power and therefore in absence of such powers from the State Government the recovery ordered by the Superintending Engineer was without competence and that the principles of natural justice were violated in ordering the recovery of alleged over-payment without affording opportunity of hearing to the contractor. 4. The fact that it was the State Government who was empowered under the aforesaid clauses of the agreement to order recovery in case of over-payment to the contractor is not disputed. The learned Government Advocate was unable to show as to how in such circumstances in absence of proper delegation of powers to the Superintending Engineer concerned, could have ordered the recovery. We, therefore, hold that the recovery was ordered by a authority who was not empowered under the aforesaid clauses of the agreement to do so and therefore the tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the said recovery was illegal. 5. We, therefore, hold that the recovery was ordered by a authority who was not empowered under the aforesaid clauses of the agreement to do so and therefore the tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the said recovery was illegal. 5. On the question of violation of principles of natural justice, we see no reason to disagree with the tribunal because in this cases the payment was made at a rate over then specified in the agreement by the Superintending Engineer and then it was the same authority who without any notice to the contractor ordered recovery in terms of the objections raised by the audit. It is interesting to note that the Superintending Engineer who had ordered payment earlier instead of explaining to the audit the circumstances in which he has ordered payment for 45 Cum. thickness meetly accepted the correctness of the audit objection and uniliterally directed recovery to be made to the contractor. The Accountant General of Madhya Pradesh was not a party to the contract and therefore under no circumstances the contractor was bound to accept the objections raised by the audit. He was apparently entitled to explain the justification of the payment made to him. No such opportunity was admittedly given to him before the recovery was ordered. We thus find that the impugned order suffers from no illegality so as to warrant interference. It is a fit case where the State Government should proceed to take the explanation of Superintending Engineer concerned on whose orders the alleged over payment was made and on his failure to substantiate his action in this behalf, should proceed to recover the amount from him personally. 6. In result the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/-.