Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 133 (MP)

A. C. Chenna Reddy v. State of MP

2014-01-28

ANIL SHARMA, RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
Judgment Rajendra Menon, J:- Challenging a Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 27.8.2010 & 21.9.2010 issued by the Naib Tahsildar, Recovery of Government Dues, Mumbai, at the instance of Executive Engineer, Narmada Development, Division No.4, Sihora, District- Jabalpur as contained in Annexure-P1 & P2, petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Petitioner was granted the contract for earthwork construction of 27 structures and cement concrete lining vide Agreement No.3DL/2003-04 and various other works as are indicated in the writ petition. The work was executed by the petitioner and finally when the final settlement was done, it seems that certain payments were not made to the petitioner, as a result, petitioner aggrieved, raised a dispute before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal on a reference made under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyatham Adhikaran Adhiniyam. It is the case of the petitioner that the work to the tune of 7.91 crores has been executed and proper payment has not been done. The case was registered as Reference Case No.3/2008 and in the said proceedings, it is stated by the petitioner that no counter claim was made by the State Government. The claim of the petitioner was dismissed and, therefore, the Arbitration Appeal was filed which was registered as A.R.No.6/2009. When this writ petition was filed in the year 2010, the arbitration case before this Court was pending but now it is reported that the same is still pending. It is stated by Shri Rao, learned Sr. Counsel that neither in the proceedings held before the arbitration tribunal and the proceedings pending before this Court, any counter claim was raised by the State Government but now without adjudication of the claim, the State Government is proposing to recovery the amount by issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate. 3. Placing reliance on the judgments rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of B.B.Verma & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Anr. 2008 (1) MPHT 17 , so also in W.P.No.640/1998 (Thakurdas Narang & Sons Vs. State of MP & Ors.) decided on 13.4.1999, M/s F.A. Construction, Mumbai Vs. Narmada Valley Development Department & Anr. 2006 (2) MPHT 216 , it was argued by learned Sr. Vs. State of MP & Anr. 2008 (1) MPHT 17 , so also in W.P.No.640/1998 (Thakurdas Narang & Sons Vs. State of MP & Ors.) decided on 13.4.1999, M/s F.A. Construction, Mumbai Vs. Narmada Valley Development Department & Anr. 2006 (2) MPHT 216 , it was argued by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that when a dispute is raised and is pending, the liquidated damages cannot be claimed by way of issuance of the Revenue Recovery Certificate without adjudication of the dispute before the competent forum or authority. It is pointed out by Shri Rao, learned Sr. Counsel that in all these cases, principles have been well settled and in the present case also, without adjudication of the same by any proper forum, the damages cannot be claimed. 4. Respondents have filed the reply and the respondents only say that the aforesaid amount is due to be paid to the Government and as the reference case of the petitioner has been dismissed, the petitioner cannot claim benefit merely by filing Arbitration Case before the Arbitration Tribunal. Keeping in view the laws laid down in the cases of the B.B.Verma (Supra) and other cases as referred to hereinabove, it is clear that without adjudication of the dispute before the proper forum or authority, the recovery of the amount by way of Revenue Recovery Certificate is not maintainable. The principle is rightly settled to the effect that once the amount is disputed, without adjudication of the same before the appropriate forum or authority, the recovery simply by way of Revenue Recovery Certificate is unsustainable. 5. Accordingly, recovery without adjudication of the claim in the light of the consistence view expressed in the cases referred to hereinabove is unsustainable. We see no reason to uphold the action taken by the State Government. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned Revenue Recovery Certificates dated 27.8.2010 & 21.9.2010 Annexure-P1 & P2 are quashed and liberty is granted to the respondents to take action afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. 6. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.