JUDGMENT S. K. Dubey, J. - This is a revision under S. 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') against the order dated 26th January, 1988 passed in Reference case No. 54 of 1986, by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal (for short the 'Tribunal'). 2. Facts giving rise to this revision are these. The petitioner is a private limited company, who, on acceptance of the tender was awarded the works contract by the State Government, Irrigation Department, to construct common Water carrier from 0.93 to 2.00 k.m. of which agreement No. 1/DL/84-85 of the value of Rs. 2,07,33,895/- was executed. In Schedule 'G' attached to the Agreement various items of work, amount of work, quantities of work and stipulated rates, were specified. For item No. 2 of Schedule 'G' Rs. 54/- per cu.m. was the stipulated rate. During the execution of the work, the petitioner was asked to execute extra work from 98485 cu.m. to 5,52,290 cu.m. that is, about 5.5 times of the agreed estimated quantity, which was grossly disproportionate. Besides, the strata for excavation was found to be materially different which posed additional difficulties in excavation and required engagement of more labour and machines. Therefore, petitioner demanded rate of Rs. 99.82 per cu.m. for the excess quantity, that is, at the rate of 15 per cent above the USR in force from 1-8-1984, in terms of clause 4.3.13.2 of the Contract. The then Superintending Engineer vide order No. 737-0 dated 14-2-1986 sanctioned the rate at Rs. 67.50 per cu.m. at which the payments were made of the running bills. Having found that excess payment has been made than the rates specified in the agreement, the order of the fixation of the increased rates was cancelled as the Superintending Engineer was not competent to fix the rates, by letter dated 17-10-1986 and the petitioner was directed to refund the excess payment of Rs. 65.96 lacs, wrongly paid to the petitioner. On this the petitioner made a representation that the petitioner was entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs. 99.82 per cu.m. The representation having not been considered the petitioner made a reference to the Tribunal under S. 7 of the Adhiniyam, wherein the petitioner raised a dispute and claimed that he is entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs. 99.82 per cu.m. The representation having not been considered the petitioner made a reference to the Tribunal under S. 7 of the Adhiniyam, wherein the petitioner raised a dispute and claimed that he is entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs. 99.82 per cu.m. The petitioner has already been paid Rs. 65.96 lacs. The respondent cannot compel the petitioner to pay back the said amount. Further the respondent be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 78.75 lacs; accordingly the claim in dispute was valued for which the requisite fifty percent of ad valorem court-fees was paid. The petitioner also sought the relief of declaration and injunction, to the effect that the amount of Rs. 65.96 lacs is not recoverable and the respondent be injuncted from recovering the amount of Rs. 65.96 lacs. For this purpose, the claim was valued at Rs. 50,000/- and for that fixed Court-fees of Rs. 15/- was paid according to item 17 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act, 1870. 3. The State Government raised a preliminary objection regarding court-fees and contended that the petitioner cannot seek declaration and injunction without payment of ad valorem court-fees according to Schedule of Adhiniyam on Rs. 65.96 lacs which the petitioner has illegally received. The petitioner cannot avoid recovery under the garb of declaration and injunction. The actual claim in dispute is for Rs. 1,44,71,000/-, the ascertained money for which no award can be passed without payment of court-fees. The Tribunal is not vested with the power to grant declaration and injunction as the Tribunal has to pass an award only in relation to dispute as defined in S. 2(1)(d) of the Adhiniyam. 4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties found that the actual dispute between the parties is in regard to the rates of second item of Schedule 'G' of the quantities of work in the agreement. The petitioner instead of the agreement rate of Rs. 40.43 per cu.m. claims the rate of Rs. 99.82 per cu.m. The difference in these two rates is actually the basis for the petitioner's claim. The petitioner instead of making this difference in the two rates, have chosen a different mode, as the basis for their claim and valued the claim for Rs. 40.43 per cu.m. claims the rate of Rs. 99.82 per cu.m. The difference in these two rates is actually the basis for the petitioner's claim. The petitioner instead of making this difference in the two rates, have chosen a different mode, as the basis for their claim and valued the claim for Rs. 78,75,252/- on the basis of the rates sanctioned by the Superintending Engineer by modifying the original agreemented rate to which he was not competent and, therefore, the rate so fixed is non-est. The said modification was cancelled vide communication dated 17-8-1986, as in terms of clause 4.3.13.2, the petitioner was only to be paid at the rate of 40.43 per cu.m. the petitioner vide letter dated 17-8-1986 was asked to refund Rs. 65.96 lacs. In view of this petitioner's demand for higher rates of Rs. 99.82 per cu.m. has to be determined in dispute. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have valued the claim in dispute accordingly as under clause 4.3.7 of the contract all intermediate payments under the running bills are to be regarded as payments by way of advance against the final payments only and not as payments for work actually done and completed. Therefore, the petitioner has to value the claim for Rs. 2,43,665/- cu.m. of extra quantity of work, that is, Rs. 1,44,71,264.35 and to pay the Court-fees accordingly failing which the claim for the balance amount that is Rs. 65.96 lacs shall be treated as relinquished/abandoned. The Tribunal further observed that the relief of declaration and injunction does not fall within the purview of the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Adhiniyam as the relief of declaration and injunction can only be granted within the domain of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Adhiniyam being the special statute which has been enacted for the specific purpose, it is limited in its scope and application and there is nothing in the Adhiniyam to indicate expressly or even impliedly that 'declaration' or 'injunction' of the nature, as sought is within the competence of the Tribunal. While construing the definition of 'dispute' under S. 2(1)(d) of the Adhiniyam and the expression "claim" of ascertained money valued at Rupees 50,000/- or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution or non-execution of a works contract or part thereof, the Tribunal observed that it relates to the money claim only which has to be mentioned. While construing the definition of 'dispute' under S. 2(1)(d) of the Adhiniyam and the expression "claim" of ascertained money valued at Rupees 50,000/- or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution or non-execution of a works contract or part thereof, the Tribunal observed that it relates to the money claim only which has to be mentioned. The fact that the expression "any difference relating to any claim valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more" solely concerns itself regarding the money claim. Mentioning of the money value in the definition of 'dispute' is also pointed to the fact that the 'difference' to come within the meaning of 'dispute' has to relate to money claim only. It is for this reason that the provision of court-fees has been made accordingly, in the Schedule under Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Niyam, 1984 (for short 'the Rules'). On scrutiny of the rules and the schedule thereunder, it is patently clear that the provisions and articles of the Court-fees Act have not been made applicable in its entirely for the Adhiniyam except to a limited extent, as mentioned in the Schedule which clearly provides that in the matter of petition (reference) 50 per cent of the valorem as mentioned in the Table of Art. 1-A of Schedule I of the Court-fees Act. Had the relief of 'declaration' and 'injunction' been also intended to be covered by way of 'dispute' for reference to the Tribunal, the Schedule under Rule 10, would have obviously made specific provision regarding the court-fees to be paid on such reliefs of 'declaration' and 'injunction'. The very fact that there is no provision in this regard, rules out the reliefs of 'declaration' and 'injunction' from out of the purview of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and from the purview of the provisions of the Adhiniyam. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that, in the absence of the provision for court-fees on 'declaration' and 'injunction' in the Schedule under Rule 10, provisions of the Court-fees Act should be taken to be applicable, because Court-fees Act, as it is, is not wholly applicable for purposes of this Adhiniyam and is applicable only to a limited extent, as given in the schedule under Rule 10. For this reason also the Tribunal cannot grant any declaration and injunction as sought by the petitioner. For this reason also the Tribunal cannot grant any declaration and injunction as sought by the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner was directed to delete the same. 5. The petitioner in this revision seeks the relief that the order of Tribunal be set aside, suitable directions about the Rule 10 of the Rules, its validity and scope be given, remanding the case for decision on merits without demanding further court-fees. 6. During the pendency of the revision an application was filed by the respondent-State that vide order dated 30-1-1993 of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, the aforesaid work has been transferred to M.P. Electricity Board on certain conditions with its entire liability to M.P. Electricity Board with regard to the claims of the Contractor and cases pending in the Courts. Therefore, the name of the State Government be deleted from the array of respondent and in place of 'State of M.P.' the name of M.P. Electricity Board be substituted. The said application was allowed by order dated 28-2-1995, accordingly the name of the M.P. Electricity Board was substituted instead of 'State of M.P.'. 7. At the very outset we may say that the petitioner's counsel Shri V. R. Rao did not advance any argument relating to the constitutional validity of Rule 10 and thus the relief sought for declaring Rule 10 unconstitutional, ultra vires or giving suitable direction about that in its validity and scope was not pressed. 8. The question for our consideration is whether the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to pass an award on the claim of ascertained money valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution or non-execution of a work contract or part thereof without the payment of Court-fees and whether the Tribunal is vested with the powers to grant relief of declaration and 'injunction' in a dispute in a reference petition. 9. It was contended before us that every Court or Tribunal possess inherent powers and in the absence of any specific statutory provision contrary to that, the Tribunal may make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process in the Court. Powers to grant declaratory relief is not limited to S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and declaratory award can be passed by the Tribunal. Powers to grant declaratory relief is not limited to S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and declaratory award can be passed by the Tribunal. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ramnarayan v. Firm Mangeram Radheshyam Hardo ( AIR 1979 MP 61 ). It was submitted that on the fact or facts that when the payment was made on the rates fixed by the Superintending Engineer for the extra work and that the amount was ascertained, the petitioner was entitled to claim the balance amount which was not paid. It was not necessary to include the amount already paid as there was no dispute for that. Dispute arose only after cancellation of the order of the Superintending Engineer. Therefore, the petitioner valued the claim accordingly, dispute was only to the entitlement of rate, therefore, the relief of declaration and injunction was prayed on which the fixed Court-fees was payable. The ad valorem court-fees was payable only on the balance amount of Rs. 78.75 lacs. 10. Shri M. L. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent Board contended that the Adhiniyam is a special enactment wherein the power has been conferred on the statutory Tribunal to arbitrate 'dispute'. The power is to be exercised in the manner laid down in the statute, other modes of compliances, or exercise of power are excluded. The 'Tribunal' is to be distinguished from Court as the Tribunal is constituted under the Adhiniyam and that a Court is a Tribunal constituted by the State as a part of the ordinary hierarchy of Courts, counsel cited - Nazir Ahmed. v. King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253); N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ) and a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Yashwant Rao v. Sampat ( AIR 1979 MP 21 ). 11. The Adhiniyam is a special enactment enacted with an object as is clear from its preamble, that is an Act to provide for the establishment of a Tribunal to arbitrate in disputes to which the State Government or a Public Undertaking wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the State Government is a party and for matter incidental thereto or connected therewith. Section 2 of Chapter I is a Definition Clause. Section 2 of Chapter I is a Definition Clause. For the purposes of this revision defining of 'dispute' as defined in S. 2(1)(d) of the Adhiniyam is relevant which means claim of ascertained money valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution or non-execution of a works contract or part thereof. Chapter II deals with the constitution of the Tribunal. Chapter III contains Ss. 7 to 15 which deals with commencement of proceedings before Tribunal and procedure of Tribunal. Chapter IV deals with the Award and orders of the Tribunal and its Benches embarrassing Ss. 16 to 18. In Chapter IV, S. 17-A and 17-B were inserted by M.P. Act No. 9 of 1990 whereas from 29-4-90, Section 17-A deals with inherent powers of the Tribunal and S. 17-B deals with correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes. Chapter V deals with the High Court powers of Revision as provided in S. 19 of the Adhiniyam. In Chapter VI miscellaneous provisions have been made which are contained in Ss. 20 to 31. 12. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner it is necessary to quote S. 7 and item 1 of Schedule which gives Table of Fees and prescribes the fee on petition (reference). "7. Reference to Tribunal :- (1) Either party to a works contract shall irrespective of the fact whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not, refer in writing the dispute to the Tribunal. (2) Such reference shall be drawn up in such form as may be prescribed and shall be supported by an affidavit verifying the averments. (3) The reference shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. (4) Every reference shall be accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such other fees for service of execution of processes as may be prescribed. (5) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), if the Tribunal is satisfied that the reference is a fit case for adjudication, it may admit the reference but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied it may summarily reject the reference after recording reasons therefor". ** ** ** "Schedule" (See Rule 10) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. Description Fees -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. (5) On receipt of the reference under sub-section (1), if the Tribunal is satisfied that the reference is a fit case for adjudication, it may admit the reference but where the Tribunal is not so satisfied it may summarily reject the reference after recording reasons therefor". ** ** ** "Schedule" (See Rule 10) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. Description Fees -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Petition (Reference) Fifty percent of the Advalorem as mentioned in the the table to Article I-A of Schedule I of the Court-fees Act table to Article 1-A of Schedule I of the Court-fees Act 1870 (No. VII of 1870) in its application to the State of Madhya Pradesh". ** ** ** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. The Tribunal cannot be attributed the status of a Civil Court for the simple reason that it is to arbitrate on a 'dispute' which is evident from intention of Legislature and for that the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred which is specifically expressed in S. 20 of the Adhiniyam. Sub-section (1) of section 20 oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain or decide any dispute cognizable by the Tribunal. While sub-sec. (1-A) inserted in S. 20 by M.P. Act No. 9 of 1990, with effect from 24-4-1990 lays down notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), a Civil Court may entertain and decide any dispute of the nature specified in the sub-section referred to it by a person in the capacity of indigent person. Sub-section (2) of S. 20 expressly contemplates continuation of the arbitration proceedings under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, pending before any Arbitrator, Umpire or Court at the time of enforcement of the Adhiniyam. A Division Bench of this Court in Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. State of M.P. (1991 MP LJ 520) while considering the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the application of reference filed in forma pauperis by applying the provisions of Order 33, of the Code of Civil Procedure, after examining the object and various provisions contained in the Adhiniyam and the relevant section, crucial to the question for decision, as S. 7, Ss. 16, 17, Rule 10 and Schedule, observed that the Tribunal constituted under the Adhiniyam does not possess any inherent powers to entertain any reference made under S. 7 of the Adhiniyam to examine the indigency applying order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and grant exemption from payment of Court-fees in respect of which express provision has been made under Section 7(3) read with item No. 1 of the Schedule contemplated under the Rules framed under Section 20 of the Adhiniyam. 14. It is well recognised rule of interpretation that where an Act creates a new jurisdiction, a new procedure, new forms or new remedies, the procedure, the forms or remedies there provided and not others must be strictly followed. Where a power is given by the Statute to do certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other method of performances are necessarily forbidden. It is also well established that where a statutory power is conferred for the first time upon a Court, and the mode of exercising it is provided, it means that no other mode is to be adopted. See Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor (supra); State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh ( AIR 1964 SC 358 ); A. K. Roy v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1986 SC 2160 ); Principles of Statutory interpretation by Jutice G. P. Singh, Sixth Edition, Page 269. 15. The contention that every Tribunal possesses inherent powers, therefore, the Tribunal is competent to grant relief of declaration and injunction and that S. 17-A has been inserted in the year 1990 by M.P. Act No. 9 of 1990, first proviso of which carves out an exception that in exercise of inherent powers no interim order by way of injunction, stay or attachment shall be granted before the award is passed. That shows that prior to insertion of S. 17-A, the Tribunal was competent to pass interim order by way of injunction stay of attachment. The submission has no merit as the Adhiniyam creates a new forum and provides machinery for enforcement of right and remedy being created uno flatu and finality being attached to its decisions in terms of Section 17. The submission has no merit as the Adhiniyam creates a new forum and provides machinery for enforcement of right and remedy being created uno flatu and finality being attached to its decisions in terms of Section 17. The Tribunal has not been vested with the powers to pass any order/award other than that in conformity with the powers given by the Statute under Section 16 of the Adhiniyam. It is not permissible to reserve the Tribunal by implication, any inherent power of Civil Court to grant any interim order or to pass a final order of the nature other than that of which power given by the statute. 16. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal can only be invoked on a dispute as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of Adiniyam arising out of works contract by making a reference to the Tribunal under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam; sub-section (3) of Section 7 lays down that reference shall be accompanied by such as may be prescribed which is prescribed under Rule 10(ii), Table of Fees which is shown in Schedule. The Court-fees Act has been applied only to a limited extent as described in Table of Fees, that means other provisions of the Court-fees Act would not be applicable. Therefore, on receipt of the reference petition under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam in the manner prescribed, the Tribunal gets the jurisdiction to deal with the dispute after holding an enquiry in the manner, provided under Chapter III and to pass an award on that under Section 16 of the Adhiniyam. Section 16 does not vest the power in the Tribunal to grant a declaratory decree or a decree for injunction as like that of civil Court under the provisions of Specific Relief Act, 1963 but an award is to be passed on the 'dispute' as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Adhiniyam. Therefore, there was no option for the petitioner to bifurcate the claim of ascertained money by seeking a declaration as the dispute was in relation to the 'rates' and of ascertained money for the work done under the works contract. 17. As this Court stayed the operation of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding payment of Court-fees we direct that if the petitioner deposits the deficit Court-fees as directed in order passed by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today that shall be accepted. 17. As this Court stayed the operation of the order passed by the Tribunal regarding payment of Court-fees we direct that if the petitioner deposits the deficit Court-fees as directed in order passed by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today that shall be accepted. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the requisite Court-fees the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the case in respect of the claim to the extent to which the court-fees has been paid. 18. We also make it clear that while deciding the dispute raised by the reference petition to the Tribunal any finding of the Tribunal in relation to the applicability of rates, recorded in the order impugned will not come in the way of the petitioner while deciding the 'dispute' on merits, as the Tribunal has still to decide as to what rate the petitioner was entitled for the extra work - whether rates fixed under the agreement or as fixed by the Superintending Engineer. 19. In the result, the revision is dismissed with costs. Counsel fees Rs. 1000/- if per-certified. Revision dismissed