ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Pratip Visoriya, learned Government Advocate, for petitioners. Shri Nitin Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 3. This Revision under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, is directed against the award dated 27-4-2016. 4. The relevant facts briefly are that the respondent, a registered A-IV Class Contractor, in pursuance to NIT dated 12-6-2017 for the construction of Canal Lining of Main Canal and Distributaries (7 Nos.) (Item Rate) of Bandia Nala Project in District Guna entered into an agreement No. 2/07-08. The amount of tender was Rs. 1,77,64,274/-. The stipulated period of completion was 18 months, including rainy season, from the date of work order. The work order was issued vide No. 2349 dated 6-6-2007. The stipulated date for completion was 5-12-2008. The work was completed within stipulated period. However, during execution of work extra lead of sand was to be brought from Sindh River (at Village Bhaura), which was at a distance of 160 kms from the work site. The site was not specified in Annexure C appended with the agreement. That Clause 2.25 of the agreement stipulated : “2.25 Materials to be used on work specified in the contract will be only from the quarries specified in Annexure-C. If the change of quarries, from those mentioned in Annexure-C and necessitated due to any reason during the execution of work, such changes will be made only with the approval of the Superintending Engineer/Chief Engineer given in writing. Any alternations items affected by change of such quarries will be governed by the clauses 4.3.13.1, 4.3.13.2 and 4.3.13.3 of the Agreement in Form B.” 5. The record reveals that though the Executive Engineer had calculated the extra lead amounting to Rs. 2,71,687/-; however, as there was no prior sanction by the Competent Authority, either Superintending Engineer/Chief Engineer, the Chief Engineer vide Letter No. 5 dated 22-3-2010 rejected the payment. This led the contract first file a Writ Petition No. 743/2011 which stood disposed of on 7-5-2013 as interference was declined in the wake of arbitration clause. The Contractor then filed application before the Superintending Engineer on 7-10-2013. As the cause of action had accrued on 22-3-2010, and the reference was not within 3 years under clause 4.3.29.2. This led the contract first file a Writ Petition No. 743/2011 which stood disposed of on 7-5-2013 as interference was declined in the wake of arbitration clause. The Contractor then filed application before the Superintending Engineer on 7-10-2013. As the cause of action had accrued on 22-3-2010, and the reference was not within 3 years under clause 4.3.29.2. As the claim petition was belatedly filed before the Tribunal, the issue of limitation arose for consideration. The Tribunal dwelling on the scope of section 7-B of Adhiniyam went on to return finding as to limitation in favour of the Contractor. The Tribunal found : “20. On perusal of above clause, it is clear that no time limit is prescribed to approach the final authority i.e. S.E. For filing quantified claim. This fact is admitted between the parties that it is a performed contract. In the light of above pronouncement in case of Shriniwas Construction Co. (Supra) this reference petition will be governed by section 7-B(1) of the Adhiniyam. As per this provision, quantified claim filed by the petitioner on 7-10-2013 and in consequence, petition filed on 6-8-2014 is well within the prescribed time limit of section 7-B(1) of the Adhiniyam. Hence, objection raised by the respondents regarding limitation is rejected.” 6. The question is whether in given facts the Tribunal is justified in holding that the limitation clause is not applicable because it was “performed contract”. 7. Evidently, the work was completed on 5-12-2008. The claim for extra lead was rejected on 22-3-2010. Sub-section (2-A) of section 7-B of Adhiniyam, envisages : “(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1); the Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless it is made within three years from the date on which the works contract is terminated, foreclosed, abandoned or comes to an end in any other manner or when a dispute arises during the pendency of the works contract” Provided that if a reference petition is filed by the State Government, such period shall be thirty years.” 8. Thus it is not only termination, foreclosure, abandonment or pendency of works contract a reference petition, but also in respect of dispute arising from the works contract which “comes to an end in any manner”. This aspect has been glossed over by the Tribunal which led it to erroneously observe that the limitation is not applicable in case of performed contract. This aspect has been glossed over by the Tribunal which led it to erroneously observe that the limitation is not applicable in case of performed contract. In Sanjay Dubey vs. State of M. P. and another, 2012(4) M.P.L.J. 212 a Full Bench of our Court observed : “11. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the time limit prescribed in Clause 29 is not mandatory and therefore, the same need not be adhered to strictly. We are not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission as non-submission of timely claims is likely to result in disappearance or destruction of the evidence. A person cannot be permitted to approach the authority at any time which he chooses. It is also relevant to mention here that the applicants have entered into an agreement with the State Government with open eyes and they cannot be permitted now to contend that it is not necessary to adhere to the time schedule provided for redressal of their grievances under clause 29 of the agreement. Similarly, the contention that aggrieved person can approach the Superintending Engineer as well as the Chief Engineer within a period of three years as provided in Article 113 of the Limitation Act also cannot be accepted as it is well settled in law that provisions of Limitation Act apply to Courts only and the authorities under the agreement are admittedly not the Courts. [See: State of Jharkhand and others vs. Shivam Coke Industries, Dhanbad and others, (2011) 8 SCC 656 ]. For yet another reason, this submission cannot be accepted, as the Division Bench decision in M/s Sermen India Road Makers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M. P., 2005(3) MPHT 292 has been overruled by the Full Bench vide order dated 27-10-2009 and it has been held that it would not be correct to say that the claimant can raise the dispute within three years before the final authority from the date of accrual of cause of action. 13. In view of the preceding analysis, we proceed to state our conclusions as under : – (v) The dispute under Clause 29 has to be submitted within the time limit which has been prescribed in the clause. 13. In view of the preceding analysis, we proceed to state our conclusions as under : – (v) The dispute under Clause 29 has to be submitted within the time limit which has been prescribed in the clause. The dispute cannot be submitted to the Authorities mentioned in Clause 29 of the Agreement within a period of three years as the provisions of Limitation Act do not apply to the Authorities under the Agreement as they are not the Courts.” 9. In the case at hand as the dispute was raised after three years from the date of accrual of cause of action i.e. rejection of claim on 22-3-2010, the reference petition filed on 6-8-2014 was apparently, barred by time. The Tribunal grossly erred in law and fact in condoning the delay. 10. Even otherwise there is no material on record to show that the contract was permitted by an order by Superintending Engineer/Chief Engineer to fetch sand from the place not mentioned in the Annexure C read with Clause 2.25 of the agreement. Thus even on merit the contractor was not entitled for the amount towards extra load of sand. 11. The impugned order when tested on the anvil of above analysis cannot be upheld. Consequently, the award is set aside. The reference petition filed by the Contractor is dismissed. 12. Revision is allowed to the extent above. No costs.