1. Petitioner claims to be a Construction Co. having been awarded a contract for construction of a road under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme. Parties entered into a contract and the petitioner carried out the work in pursuance to the contract but now by the impugned communication dated 28/01/13 as certain disputes have risen with regard to the execution of the contract and as the respondents are recovering a sum of Rs. 46,75,159/-, petitioner has filed this writ petition and the prayer made in this writ petition is that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract, the dispute be referred to the Dispute Review Expert Committee.
2. Inviting our attention to Clause 25.1. and 25.2 of the procedure for resolution of dispute as contained in the agreement and reproduced by the petitioner, Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar argued that when a dispute arose between the parties, petitioner raised the dispute, but now by communication Annexure P-11 dated 28/01/13, the department has refused to refer the dispute to the Review committee and, therefore, this writ petition.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the agreement itself contemplates that if the dispute is not resolved by the Dispute Review Expert Committee, then the petitioner is given liberty to seek reference in accordance with the provisions contained in the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam and the dispute has to be referred to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal.
4. Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar indicated that when the Dispute Redressal Committee has not taken cognizance of the matter and when the matter is not at all referred to this committee, Arbitration Tribunal does not entertain the dispute, we see no reason to accept such a contention.
5. Petitioner had taken recourse to the remedy available by seeking reference to the Dispute Review Expert Committee but it is the department which refused to refer the dispute to this committee. That being so, petitioner can now invoke the Arbitration Clause and seek reference of the dispute by approaching the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal and it would be for the Tribunal to take note of all the factors and pass appropriate orders with regard to maintainability of the dispute.
6. That apart, the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute arising out of execution of a contract and, therefore, interference into the matter directly by this Court without taking recourse to the remedy available of Arbitration or the remedy available under the common law is not proper.
7. Taking note of all these factors, we see no reason to interfere into the matter as the agreement itself contemplates resolution of the dispute by seeking reference to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal or to take recourse to the remedy available under common law. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.
