ORDER 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs :- “(A) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further direct to the respondents to take final measurement of the work executed by the petitioner and prepare the final bill as directed by the Engineer in Chief, within a fix time frame of 4 weeks. (B) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in view of aforesaid facts and grounds may kindly be allowed in favour of petitioner.” 2. Shri Shekhar submits that indisputably the contract given to the petitioner by the respondents was cancelled on 3.4.2012 (Annx.P/3). Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged cancellation of contract before the Arbitration Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 13.12.2016 (Annx.R/4) has dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a plain reading of the cancellation order dated 3.4.2012 Annx.P/3 shows that respondents have decided that the work which has not been done by the petitioner shall be carried out by another agency at the risk and cost of the petitioner. Thus, it is necessary to be recorded as to what is the extent to which petitioner has executed/ completed the work. Otherwise, the entire burden of expenses of remaining work may come on the shoulders of the petitioner. In other words, the respondents may shift the burden on the petitioner even though some amount of work has already been completed by the petitioner. By taking this court to the document dated 17.5.2012 Annex. R/2, R/3, filed with the return, Shri Shekhar Sharma argued that no joint measurement had taken place. 4. The same is the contention founded upon the document dated 25.4.2013 (Annx.P/16), 30.12.2017 (Annx.P/8 and 24.5.2018 (Annx.P/10). Lastly, by placing reliance on the representation dated 4.3.2019 (Annx.P/12), it is urged that if joint measurement takes place, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. This court in W.P.No.14105/2016 (Annx.P/13) issued similar directions which can be followed. 5. It is further urged that in view of Full Bench decision of this court in Viva Highways Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. [ 2017 (3) JLJ 66 (FB)] = 2017(2) MPLJ-681, the claim of petitioner regarding joint measurement does not fall within the ambit of "Dispute" and, therefore, appropriate directions may be issued. 5. It is further urged that in view of Full Bench decision of this court in Viva Highways Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd. [ 2017 (3) JLJ 66 (FB)] = 2017(2) MPLJ-681, the claim of petitioner regarding joint measurement does not fall within the ambit of "Dispute" and, therefore, appropriate directions may be issued. The petitioner could not have claimed the relief regarding joint measurement before the Arbitration Tribunal. 6. Per contra, Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Addl. A.G submits that on 3.4.2012, the contract of petition was terminated. Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged it by claiming all possible relief before the Tribunal which could have been claimed under the garb of "consequential relief" before the Arbitration Tribunal but same was dismissed. Hence this petition is not maintainable. The final joint measurement had taken place on 21.5.2012. Petitioner has not disputed the averments of para-6 of the return. In view of the Full Bench judgment reported in Shri Gouri Ganesh Shri Balaji Constructions v. Executive Engineer, PWD- [ 2018 (2) JLJ 393 (FB)] = 2018(3) MPLJ 163 , no relief is due to the petitioner. 7. No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties. 8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 9. Before dealing with rival contentions advanced at the bar, I deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of order dated 3.4.2012 Annexure P/3 whereby the contract of the petitioner was rescinded: “You were served with a show cause notice in this regard vide this office No.89/A.H/Harda date 7.1.2012 for which no satisfactory reply received to the Engineer in Charge by the date specified in the show cause notice. Therefore, under the powers delegated under Sub clause 3 © 1 R.C. Tirole, Executive Engineer, Engineer in Charge for aforesaid work under the aforesaid agreement on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh hereby rescind the contract with immediate effect. The EMD for the work is forfeited in the favour of the Govt. The mentioned left out/instraled work will be carried out by the another agency on your risk and cost. Exceeded amount if any will be recovered from you. The EMD for the work is forfeited in the favour of the Govt. The mentioned left out/instraled work will be carried out by the another agency on your risk and cost. Exceeded amount if any will be recovered from you. The action is with out prejudice to anyone in the favour of Government to realized _______ and losses and damages whatsoever under such clause of Sub-clauses of the _____.” (certain portion of this order is not legible) Same order contains following direction: “Copy forwarded to the SDO PWD(B/R) Sub Division Harda for information and necessary action. Measurement to the work done (if any) may be taken in presence of the contractor and acceptance may be obtained in the concerned M.B.” The underlined portion aforesaid shows that in no uncertain terms, it was made clear to the petitioner that left out/incomplete work of the petitioner/contractor will now be carried out by another agency. The cost of such left out work of petitioner will be recovered from him. The order further contains a direction for joint measurement in the presence of the contractor. 10. I find substance in the argument of Shri Shekhar Sharma that if this joint measurement does not take place, there will always be possibility of improper fastening of liability on the petitioner by the department. Putting it differently, in absence of joint measurement, the work which has been completed by the petitioner could not be assessed and in that event, the possibility of inclusion of that work completed by petitioner by the other agency cannot be ruled out. Learned Deputy Advance General has taken pains to contend that in view of judgment of Full Bench in the case of Shri Gouri Ganesh (supra), the petitioner could have claimed by consequential relief before the Arbitration Tribunal. Having not done so, this petition is not maintainable. I do not find any substance in this argument. In view of another Full Bench judgment of this Court in Viva Highways Ltd. (supra), it is clear that the Arbitration Tribunal under The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 can decide only such claims which are covered by the definition of ‘dispute’. No claim or relief which is beyond the purview of ‘dispute’ can be gone into or decided by the Tribunal. No claim or relief which is beyond the purview of ‘dispute’ can be gone into or decided by the Tribunal. The judgment of Viva Highways (supra) was not disturbed on this aspect in the subsequent Full Bench judgment in Shri Gouri Ganesh (supra). 11. The dispute before the Arbitration Tribunal was regarding legality and validity of the order dated 3.4.2012 Annexure P/3 to the extent contract of petitioner was cancelled. There was no ‘dispute’ between the parties before the Tribunal in relation to the footnote of the order dated 3.4.2012 Annexure P/3 which is pregnant with a direction for joint measurement. Thus, there was no occasion for the petitioner to claim any relief in relation to joint measurement before the Tribunal. Thus, I am unable to hold that relief claimed in this petition is hit by judgment of Shri Gouri Ganesh (supra). The judgment of Shri Gouri Ganesh (supra) cannot be pressed into service for yet another reason. The direction contained in Annexure P/3 for joint measurement does not fall within the ambit of ‘consequential relief’. Whether or not the order Annexure P/3 is interfered with by the Arbitration Tribunal, the direction for joint measurement mentioned in the said order will remain intact. In other words, the relief of joint measurement is not a consequence of success of petitioner before the Arbitration Tribunal against order dated 3.4.2012 (Annexure P/3). Thus, this argument of Government deserves simple rejection. 12. The petitioner has filed number of documents which are reproduced hereinabove which shows that till 24.5.2018 Annexure P/10 the department consistently took the stand that joint measurement has not taken place. 13. On a specific query from the Bench regarding various letters written by department which shows that joint measurement has not taken place till 2018, Shri Yadav, learned Deputy Advocate General fairly submitted that the documents were written by the officers of the department for the reasons best known to them. The documents dated 25.4.2013 (Annx.P/16), 30.12.2017 (Annx.P/8 and 24.5.2018 (Annx.P/10) show that the joint measurement could not take place even till year 2018. Promptly thereafter, petitioner preferred his detailed representation dated 4.3.2019 Annexure P/12 and when his grievances stood unaddressed by the department, filed this petition. Thus, I am unable to agree with the argument of learned Deputy Advocate General that a lawful measurement had taken place on 21.5.2012. Promptly thereafter, petitioner preferred his detailed representation dated 4.3.2019 Annexure P/12 and when his grievances stood unaddressed by the department, filed this petition. Thus, I am unable to agree with the argument of learned Deputy Advocate General that a lawful measurement had taken place on 21.5.2012. In view of foregoing analysis, it is clear that petitioner is seeking enforcement of direction of joint measurement appended to order dated 3.4.2012 Annexure P/3. Petitioner had no remedy regarding this relief before the Arbitration Tribunal. A Division Bench of this Court in WP No.14105/2016 (M/s Gurmel Singh vs. State) decided on 26.10.2016, directed for joint measurement. Joint measurement, in the opinion of this Court, is necessary so that petitioner is not unnecessarily fastened with liability of a cost of a work which is already performed by him but claimed by other agency. Resultantly, I deem it proper to allow this petition and direct the respondents to take final measurement of the work executed by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within 90 days from the date of production of copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly. 14. Petition is allowed.