Judgment ( 1. ) IN this revision petition preferred under Section 19 of the Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, (for brevity the Act) the applicant has called in question the legal presentableness of the impugned award dated 2-7-1994 passed by the Arbtiration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 76/1991, whereby the claim of the non-applicant was partly allowed and the applicants are directed refund the amount of Rs. 1,13,332/- alongwith interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of recovery, i. e. , 3-7-1989. ( 2. ) THE non-applicant executed an agreement bearing No. 17 of 1987-88 for the construction of Ghorapachar Tank Group No. b (balance work Ch. Nos. 28 to 40) Tehsil Huzoor, District Bhopal. The said work was completed by the applicant alongwith Item No. 10 as described in the agreement and only measurement of this item No. 10 was in dispute before the Tribunal as well as before this Court because at the time of final bill on 14-7-1988 a sum of Rs. 1,13,332/- had already been recovered from non-applicant in respect of this dispute. ( 3. ) THE claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that recovery was made on account of audit report of Accountant General by the non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, which is ab initio illegal because as per agreement in between the parties, if any due is payable by the claimant to the State that can be recovered only by the State Government and not by the applicant Nos. 2 and 3. In other words when the powers of recovery are not delegated to the non- applicant Nos. 2 and 3 then such recovery could not be made by them or by any of the officers except the State Government and in view of this petitioner preferred a claim before the Tribunal. ( 4. ) AS per the return submitted by the non-applicant, it was pleaded that item No. 10 of g Schedule of the agreement was providing 30 cm. thick hand packed dry stone pitching of quarried boulder, stones laying, packing and finishing over 15 cm. thick of spells including cutting of upstream slope of embankment to proper slope. According to Paras 5. 11 and 5. 11. 3 of the specification schedule attached to the agreement. thick hand packed dry stone pitching of quarried boulder, stones laying, packing and finishing over 15 cm. thick of spells including cutting of upstream slope of embankment to proper slope. According to Paras 5. 11 and 5. 11. 3 of the specification schedule attached to the agreement. The petitioner was required to lay 36 cm thick dry stone pitching of quarry spells and payment by multiplying the surface area of upstream slope to the depth of pitching as provided in Schedule g, i. e. , 30 cm thickness. ( 5. ) AFTER making over the payment audit took place of above said account by the office of Accountant General, Gwalior (M. P.) in which a report was given that while making said payment the thickness of pitching was considered as 45 cm instead of 30 cm by including the other terms of the contract. Hence, actual quantity of work was executed in relating to the disputed item as said above. The quantities of said work as per Schedule 4167. 01 cum whereas non-applicant was paid for quantities 6250. 52 cum. Thus, non-applicant was overpaid in relating to the quantities 2831 cum and this much amount had to be recovered from the non- applicant on the rate settled as per agreement, i. e. , Rs. 60/- per cum and in multiplying amount was come Rs. 1,25,010/ -. It was also pleaded that whatever recovery is made by the applicants that is in accordance with the contract and the same is justified and non-applicant has no case and prayed for dismissal of the reference. ( 6. ) THE Tribunal has decided that the above said excess payment was made by applicant Nos. 2 and 3 to the non-applicant and as per finding they are no authority to initiate the proceedings for recovery against the non-applicant and recover the same. It was also found that the powers of recovery has not been delegated or sub-delegated by the State Government to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 and as per Clause 4. 3. 38. 2 of agreement the recovery could have been made only by the State Government. In view of this the non-applicant claim was accepted and amount or Rs. 1,13,332/- was directed to be refunded to non-applicant alongwith interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of recovery, i. e. , 3-7-1989, cost of claim Counsel fee of Rs. 3. 38. 2 of agreement the recovery could have been made only by the State Government. In view of this the non-applicant claim was accepted and amount or Rs. 1,13,332/- was directed to be refunded to non-applicant alongwith interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of recovery, i. e. , 3-7-1989, cost of claim Counsel fee of Rs. 2000/- is also awarded. ( 7. ) THE applicants have come up before this Court for setting aside the impugned award on the ground that the applicants had an inherent powers to recover from the concerned persons who had been over paid and the authority has the jurisdiction to recover. His another submission was that after audit of the account it had been worked out that over payment had taken place and recovery of the excess amount was necessary from the concerned persons in view of the audit report and if the over payments had been made by the authority the same authority could have recovered. His further submission is that the findings of the Tribunal regarding that the applicants were not authorized to recover the excess payment in the lack of delegation of powers by the State Government is absolutely erroneous, it is canvassed by him that the recovery of excess amount is bonafide proceeding and as in tune with the principles of natural justice a show-cause was given to the non-applicant before the recovery of the above said amount. His last plank of submission is that the non-applicant had been over paid in comparison to work done by him then there was no other requirement for recovery and same had been made justifiably by the officials on behalf of the State and hence the award passed by the Tribunal is vulnerable. ( 8. ) ON the other hand Counsel of the non-applicant submitted that as per the terms of agreement except the State Government of M. P. no any authority or official could have proceeded for recovery of the said amount even if it was paid in excess and it is apparent on record that the whole recovery proceedings was started by the applicant No. 2 and in compliance of that applicant No. 3 proceeded further. His further submission is that the audit report of the Accountant General could not be a criterion to initiate the recovery proceeding by officials of the department, even it is not consulted by the State Government and in the absence of proper order of recovery no recovery can be made from the non-applicant and hence the revision petition deserves for dismissal. ( 9. ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsels of the respective parties, we are of the considered view that the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction by this Court. ( 10. ) FOR considering the above said situation we have to examine the authority of the concerned officials and power of recovery of such officials after receiving the report of said Accountant Generals office. ( 11. ) ONCE the payment is made by the concerned authority through officials thereafter if any payment which have been paid in excess than the actual amount then in view of the agreement executed between the parties, the power for recovery of excess amount should be subdelegated by the State of Madhya Pradesh to the concerned officials, but in the case at hand no such document has been brought on record by which the concerned officials like the non-applicant No. 2 and No. 3 were subdelegated the power by the State Government. ( 12. ) THE whole dispute in relating to the recovery of excess amount can be resolved by bare perusal of Clause 4. 3. 38. 2, of agreement executed between the parties. The said clause of the agreement (Ex. P-1) is as under:-"government shall have the right to cause an audit and technical examination of the work an the final bills of the contractor including all supporting vouchers, abstracts, etc. to be made after payment of the final bill and if as a result of such audit and technical examination any sum is found to have been over paid in respect of any work done by the contractor under the contract or any work claimed by him to have been done by him under the contract and found not to have been executed, the contractor shall be liable to refund the amount of over payment and it shall be lawful for Government to recover the same from him in the manner prescribed in Sub-clause 4. 3. 38. 3. 38. 1 of this clause and if it is found that the contractor was paid less than what due to him under the contract and respect of any work executed by him under it the amount of such under payment shall be duly paid by the Government to the contractor: Provided that Govt. shall not entitled to recover any sum over paid nor the contractor shall be entitled to payment of any sum paid short where such payment has been agreed upon between the Superintending Engineer or Executive Engineer on the one hand and the contractor on the other under any term of the contract permitting payment for work after assessment by the S. E. or E. E. " ( 13. ) IN view of above said terms of the agreement the concerned officials are not authorized or empowered to recover the said excess amount from the non-applicant and it appears that recovery proceedings was initiated by the Superintending Engineer/non-applicant No. 2 after receiving the audit report of the said Accountant Generals office and on the basis of the order of S. E. the Executive Engineer/non-applicant No. 3 proceeded for recovery of the amount and sum of Rs. 1,13,332/- was recovered as stated herein above. The Superintending Engineer or Executive Engineer has not been delegated power for such recovery by the State Government. The Government is separately defined and power of recovery is vested with the State Government. Thus, such recovery could not have been made by the Government officials in the absence of lack of delegation and all these circumstances have been duly considered by the Tribunal. ( 14. ) AN identical matter travelled to this Court considering all circumstances and the award passed in favour of the claimant was affirmed elaborately stating in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and two Ors. v. Vidyaram Rajani, 1995 A. T. L. R. 226, this Court held as follows :-" the fact that it was the State Govt. 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 Govt. Advocate was unable to show as to how in such circumstances in absence of proper delegation of powers to the Superintendent Engineer concerned, could have ordered the recovery. 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 Govt. Advocate was unable to show as to how in such circumstances in absence of proper delegation of powers to the Superintendent 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. On the question of violation of principles of natural justice, we see no reason to disagree with the Tribunal because in this case the payment was made at a rate over then specific 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 Superintendent Engineer who had ordered payment earlier instead of explaining to the audit the circumstances in which he has ordered payment of 45 cm. thickness meetly accepted the correctness of the audit objection and unilaterally directed recovery to be made to the contractor. The Accountant General of Madhya Pradesh was not a party to the contract and therefore under 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 Govt. should proceed to take the explanation of Superintendent 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. " ( 15. ) IN view of the aforesaid enunciation of law we not find any perversity of approach or infirmity in the impugned order which requires any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and therefore, we concur with the same. ( 16. ) RESULTANTLY, the revision petition is dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.