Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 528 (MP)

Recondo Limited v. State of M. P.

2014-05-06

ALOK ARADHE

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter-alia has challenged the validity of action of the respondents in seeking to recover the amount in question from the petitioner by issuing Revenue Recovery Certificate. The petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents No.1 to 4 to refer the matter to Arbitration Tribunal. 3. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a Company incorporated under the the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and carrying on the business of construction of roads. The petitioner entered into a contract with the State Government for several works for widening of National Highway. As per Clause 29 of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents, the dispute arising out of contract has to be referred to the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastam Adhikaran. However, by a letter dated 11.8.2005, the Executive Engineer directed recovery of amount of Rs.85,07,464/- from the petitioner. Thereafter the Executive Engineer issued Revenue Recovery Certificate to the extent of Rs.85,07,464/- and sent the same to the Collector for recovery of the same from the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the Executive Engineer in issuing the Revenue Recovery Certificate is perse without jurisdiction and the amount cannot be recovered from the petitioner without any adjudication and in any case, one party to the contract cannot recover the amount from another party. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of B.B. Verma and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2008 RN 52 (FB) = 2008(1) MPHT 17 . On the other hand, learned Panel Law for the respondent was unable to point out that the controversy involved in the writ petition is not covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Panel Law for the respondent was unable to point out that the controversy involved in the writ petition is not covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court. 5. In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case as well as the reasons assigned in the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of B.B. Verma (supra), the impugned Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer is hereby quashed. Needless to state that the respondents, if so advised, would be at liberty to approach the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.