Order : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. Invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 ( the Act ), the present Civil Revision has been filed by the Petitioners/State authorities calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the Award dated 8.1.2007 passed by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur ( the Tribunal ) in Reference Case No.42/2005 filed by M/s B.S.B.K. Pvt. Ltd., i.e., the Respondent herein. 2. By impugned Award dated 8.1.2007, the Tribunal while partly allowing the said reference petition, has passed an award of Rs.75,66,064.65 together with interest @ 6% per annum from 16.2.1996 on the balance amount of T.D.R. of Rs.21,94,966/- till the date of award has been passed in favour of Respondent herein and against the Petitioners herein, along with further interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till its realization together with proportionate cost of the reference petition. 3. On 10.12.1990, the work of ‘construction of Power House Building at the toe of Power Dam Blocks 15 to 17 of Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Dam’ was awarded to the Respondent by the Petitioners/State authorities. On 19.12.1990, the work order was issued to the Respondent. The time allotted for completion of work was 32 months including rainy reason and 35% of the work was to be done in 8 months, 70% of the work in 20 months and the whole work was to be completed in 32 months. To this, the Respondent also submitted its construction programme for the working season up to June, 1991 and further construction programme was submitted by the Respondent on 17.1.1992 and 21.2.1992. Construction programme to complete the work was also prepared and submitted to complete the whole work by July, 1993. Construction programme to complete the balance of work before June, 1994 was submitted, up to which extension was also applied by the Respondent, which was given by the Chief Engineer to complete the work till 30.6.1994. Ultimately, the work was completed on 7.1.1994. However, the Respondent raised a dispute under Clause 51 of GC-30, which was rejected by the Superintending Engineer leading to the filing of the reference petition under Section 7-B of the Act before the Tribunal claiming amount under various heads. Petitioners/State filed their written statement stating that the Respondent is not entitled for the claims made by it and the reference petition be rejected. Petitioners/State filed their written statement stating that the Respondent is not entitled for the claims made by it and the reference petition be rejected. On 14.11.2005, the reference petition was partly amended. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal, by impugned Award dated 8.1.2007, though rejected the claim of the Respondent with respect to empty jute bags, additional curing, difference in cost of bought out items, compensation against losses suffered due to prolongation of contract and refund of withheld/recovered amount on account of any energy charges, but granted the claim for extra rate for extra items to the tune of Rs.1,78,397/- (after 1.5% discount), the claim for extra rate for extra items qua excavation hard rock with controlled blasting, wet percussion drilling for anchor rod fixing, PVC water stop, preparation of old surface to the tune of Rs.34,31,086.64/- (after 1.5% discount) towards increase of work by 30% and also granted an amount of Rs.16,80,133/- (after 1.5% discount) for decrease in work by 30%, along with claim for interest on delayed payments to the tune of Rs.81,482/-, claim for amount towards final bill and refund of T.D.R. to the tune of Rs.21,94,966/-, with 6% interest from 16.2.1996 till the date of award, thereby awarding total Rs.75,66,064.65/- in favour of M/s B.S.B.K. Pvt. Ltd., i.e., Respondent herein. 5. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the Petitioners/State, submits that the impugned Award has not been passed in accordance with law and the Tribunal has committed the jurisdictional error. Once the rates for extra items are not mutually agreed as per Clause 32 of GC-18, it ought to have been decided in accordance with the provisions of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Batliboi Environmental Engineers Limited v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Another , [ (2024) 2 SCC 375 ] , and there is no provision for deciding the rates so applied by the Tribunal and therefore the impugned Award is liable to be set-aside. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent/B.S.B.K. Pvt. Ltd., submits that since it has to be done in accordance with Clause 32 of CG- 18, the Tribunal proceeded to decide as mentioned in paragraph 40 & 41 and applied reasonable rates for granting damages to the Petitioner, which is in accordance with law as the scope of jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act is extremely limited as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sew Constructions Limited , [ (2022) 17 SCC 370 ] (See : paras 14 to 17 ), and no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned Award as the work in question relates back to the year 1990 which was allotted to the Respondent on 19.12.1990 and completed on 7.1.1994, i.e., 30 years ago. As such, the Civil Revision deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned Counsel(s) for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also perused the record of the case with utmost care and circumspection. 8. The work was awarded to the Respondent on 19.12.1990 and the work was executed on 7.1.1994, which is not in dispute. Respondent in the reference petition claimed Rs.2,56,55,534/- for the losses suffered by it. However, the Tribunal by the impugned Award only proceeded to grant an amount of Rs.75,66,064.65/- along with interest including for the variation in work to the extent of 30% towards excavation of hard rock with controlled blasting, wet percussion drilling for anchor rod fixing, PVC water stop, preparation of old surface etc., and 30% work as awarded could not be executed. 9. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice herein the scope of interference in revision preferred under Section 19 of the Act which provides as under:- “19. High Court’s power of revision.— (1) * * * (2) If it appears to the High Court that the Tribunal— (a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, or with material irregularity; or (d) has misconducted itself or the proceedings; or (e) has made an award which is invalid or has been improperly procured by any party to the proceedings, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. (3) * * * (4) * * *” 10. A careful perusal of aforesaid provisions of Section 19(2) of the Act would show that the High Court has power of revision if it appears that the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, or with material irregularity; or has misconducted itself or the proceedings; or has made an award which is invalid or has been improperly procured by any party to the proceedings. 11. The Supreme Court in Sew Constructions Limited (supra) has held that to interfere with the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, there must be errors of jurisdiction or actions of misconduct or events of invalidity or impropriety in the conduct of proceedings by the arbitrator. As such, the scope of judicial interference with the award passed by the Tribunal is extremely limited. This Court would not like to substitute its view in place of the interpretation made by the Tribunal, considering the scope as stated in Section 19(2) of the Act. 12. However, considering the merit of the matter, it would be appropriate to notice paragraphs 38 to 42 of the impugned Award, which state as under:- “38. Insofar as the claim of extra rates for the item of works of which quantity varied by more than 30% increase of the agreemented items, the petitioner had furnished a statement containing 9 numbers of scheduled items, citing therein the tendered quantity, quantity actually executed, the tendered rate and the rates demanded by him during the execution of work. Later on through number of correspondence exchanged between him and the respondents and joint meetings held from time to time, the petitioner had agreed to accept the recommended rates of the department for 5 items, which are briefed as under:- Item No.10 A-80 M-150 Plain/R.C.C. grade concrete at Rs 730/- per cubic meter. (Rates accepted by the petitioner vide his letter dated 12/4/94 Ex.D-40). Item No.16(ii) Steel Glazed Doors at Rs.1358/- per square meter. (Rates accepted in a joint meeting held on 29/9/94 Ex. D-39) Item No.25 Distempering at Rs.19/- per square meter (Rates accepted by petitioner vide Ex.D-39) Item No.27 Rocker Roller Bearing at Rs.50/- per kg. (Rates accepted by the petitioner vide his letter dated 12/4/94 Ex.D-40). Item No.16(ii) Steel Glazed Doors at Rs.1358/- per square meter. (Rates accepted in a joint meeting held on 29/9/94 Ex. D-39) Item No.25 Distempering at Rs.19/- per square meter (Rates accepted by petitioner vide Ex.D-39) Item No.27 Rocker Roller Bearing at Rs.50/- per kg. (Rates accepted by petitioner vide Ex.D-40) Item No.40-C Shalitex Board at Rs.506/- per square meter (Rates accepted by petitioner vide Ex.D-40) For the remaining 4 items i.e. item No.2(b), 5, 19 & 38 careful examination of the rates as per contract agreement, rates provisionally recommended for sanction and paid for the quantity over and above 30% increase and the rates demanded by the petitioner accompanied by his rate analysis has been carried out. The unit rates of these items deserves to be allowed as under:- 2(b) Exc. in hard work With controlled blasting. Rs.178/- per cum. 5 Wet percussion for Anchor rod fixing Rs.178/- per R.M., though earlier rates of this item was sanctioned by C.E. for Rs.45/- vide Ex.43 (dated 7.5.93 but not accepted by the petitioner. 19 PVC water stop Rs.465/- per R.M. 38 Preparation of old surface Rs.44/- per square meter 39. In our opinion, the above rates are almost at par with the prevailing rates during execution of the contract works and based on this, the amount has been worked out on the quantity of items as entered in 44 th final bill. The amount of claim on the revised rates for the items of the quantities varied by more than 30% increase over and above the agreemented quantity works out to Rs.34,31,086.65, after allowing for 1.5% discount offered by the petitioner in the contract agreement. 40. Insofar as the claim of extra rates for the item of works by the quantity decreased by more than 30% of the agreemented items, the petitioner had furnished statement containing 7 numbers of scheduled items. Further he had offered his revised rates on 26/7/94 (Ex.D-36). The respondents have rejected his rates on 3/1/95 (Ex.D-37). Further the respondents have not also submitted any proposal for revision of rates on account of variation in quantity by more than 30% on minus side and also not examined the demanded rates of the petitioner as done earlier in the case of variation by more than 30% increase. The respondents have rejected his rates on 3/1/95 (Ex.D-37). Further the respondents have not also submitted any proposal for revision of rates on account of variation in quantity by more than 30% on minus side and also not examined the demanded rates of the petitioner as done earlier in the case of variation by more than 30% increase. Thus the Tribunal is only left to examine the entire case of extra rates and to fix the same. The petitioner has submitted rate analysis of all these 7 items referring the USR w.e.f. 1/4/91, which is not proper on the ground that the quantity of items, which have not actually been executed would then be considered for revision. However, in our opinion, the revision of rates, which is to be applied for the actually executed quantity, should be based on the loss of overheads and profits, likely to be suffered by the petitioner for not executing the agreemented quantity of items. 41 . The unit rate of item No.1, 2(a), 4, 3(a), 6, 12, & 14 as per the contract agreement are revised and allowed as 45/-, 90/-, 4.50, 200/-, 440/-, 20,250/- and 150/- respectively. On application by these revised rates on the entire quantity actually executed vide 44th final bill comes to Rs.16,80,133/-after allowing for 1.5% discount offered by the petitioner in the contract agreement. 42. To conclude, the petitioner has failed to prove his claim for empty jute bags, additional curing, difference in cost of bought out items, compensation against losses suffered due to prolongation of contract and refund of withheld/recovered amount on account of energy charges. This part of the claim, therefore, in our opinion, deserves to be and is hereby rejected Insofar as the claim for extra rate for extra items, the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 1.78.397/-, for extra rates-for-the items of works of which quantity varied by more than plus 30% for Rs.34,31,086.65 and for extra rates for items of works of which quantity varied by more than minus 30% for Rs. 16,80,133/-, totaling Rs.52,89,616.65. The petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payments for Rs.81,482/-. As against payment of final bill and refund of T.D.R. the net amount payable to the petitioner under these heads comes to Rs. 21,94,966/- together with interest from 16/02/96 @ 6% per annum till the date of award. Thus the total amount of the payable award comes to Rs. The petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payments for Rs.81,482/-. As against payment of final bill and refund of T.D.R. the net amount payable to the petitioner under these heads comes to Rs. 21,94,966/- together with interest from 16/02/96 @ 6% per annum till the date of award. Thus the total amount of the payable award comes to Rs. 75,66,064.65.” 13. At this stage, it would be also be profitable to notice Clauses 31 & 32 of the General Conditions of Contract, which provide for ‘schedule of quantities’ and ‘extra items’ and state as under:- “31. Schedule of Quantities Variation in the quantities of work in Schedule ‘K’ shall not vitiate the contract. The rates quoted for the individual items shall apply for the quantities of work increased or decreased by not more than thirty percent for each of the items. Should the quantities of work actually involved under any item vary by more than thirty percent, the rate for such item of work shall be revised in accordance with the procedures indicate under clause ‘Extra Items’. The payment for the items will however, continue to be made at the original rate till the revised rate is decided. 32. Extra Items: Extra items of work shall not vitiate the contract. The contractor shall be bound to execute extra items of work as directed by the Executive Engineer. The rates for extra items are to be mutually agreed.” 14. A careful perusal of above-referred Clauses 31 & 32 would provide that for extra quantities of work more than 30%, the rates for such items of work shall be revised in accordance with the procedures indicated under clause ‘Extra Items’ which provides that extra items of work shall not vitiate the contract and the contractor shall be bound to execute extra items of work as directed by the Executive Engineer and the rates for extra items are to be mutually agreed. Since the rates could not be mutually agreed by the parties, the Tribunal itself proceeded to decide the rates. In accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act, the Tribunal which has passed the impugned Award was consisted of the Chairman (a sitting/retired Judge of the High Court) and two Members (two Chief Engineers being the technical members as per qualification prescribed). 15. In accordance with the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act, the Tribunal which has passed the impugned Award was consisted of the Chairman (a sitting/retired Judge of the High Court) and two Members (two Chief Engineers being the technical members as per qualification prescribed). 15. As per paragraph 38 of the impugned Award reproduced herein above, so far as excavation of hard rock with controlled blasting is concerned, the tender price quoted was Rs.124 per cubic meter, the Respondent quoted the price at Rs.282/- and the Petitioner-Department offered the price at Rs.124/-, but the Tribunal approved the price at Rs.178/-. Similarly, as regards the wet percussion drilling for anchor rod fixing, the tender rate was Rs.45 per running meter, the price quoted by the Respondent was Rs.350/- and the price offered by the Department and approved by the Chief Engineer was Rs.45/-, however, the Tribunal approved the price at Rs.178/-. Likewise, for PVC water stop, the tender rate quoted was Rs.412/- per running meter, the Respondent quoted the price at Rs.618/- and the Department and the Chief Engineer approved the price at Rs.286/-, but the Tribunal approved the price at Rs.465/-. So also, for the preparation of old surface, the tender rate quoted was Rs.13/- per square meter, the Respondent quoted its price at Rs.75/- and the Tribunal finally approved the price at Rs.44/-, thereby the amount of claims for variation in increase by 30% quantity, total Rs.34,31,086.64 (after 1.5% discount) was awarded by the Tribunal. 16. Similarly, as per paragraph 41 of the impugned Award referred above, 30% less work was executed which the Tribunal itself proceeded to decide as per Clauses 31 & 32 of the General Conditions of Contract, as both the parties could not mutually agreed for the rates. Since the parties could not come to a mutual agreement, the Tribunal decided to settle the dispute finally considering the fact that the work order was issued on 19.12.1990 and the work was executed on 7.1.1994. 17. Since the parties could not come to a mutual agreement, the Tribunal decided to settle the dispute finally considering the fact that the work order was issued on 19.12.1990 and the work was executed on 7.1.1994. 17. Considering the fact that the Tribunal after having gone through the materials available on record, with a slight variation in the rates accepted at the time of entering into the contract by the parties, proceeded to decide the rates for 30% additional work and further also decided the rates for 30% less work executed as per Clauses 31 & 32 of the General Conditions of Contract as both the parties could not mutually agreed for the rates, and further considering the fact that the Tribunal other than the Chairman being the judicial member was also consisting of two technical members being retired Chief Engineers of the concerned department who were equipped with the knowledge and expertise to decide the technical issues, in my considered opinion, there is no jurisdiction error committed by the Tribunal in deciding the rates which appears to be on the basis of the material available and as such I do not find any scope of interference with the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal, in view of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Act. 18. However, though according to learned Counsel for the Petitioners/State, the amount of un-executed work has been awarded in higher side, but considering the fact that the period of 30 years has already been lapsed from the date of execution of work and till date there is an interim order still in operation in favour of the Petitioners/State to the extent of depositing of Rs.50 Lakh with the Respondent, in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 40 of the impugned Award, I decline to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act to interfere with the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal as there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal in deciding the rates. 19. Consequently, the Civil Revision is dismissed. The interim order dated 13.2.2009 stands vacated. Parties to bear their own costs.