1 2025:CGHC:8889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3510 of 2019 • M/s Tirpuati Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. A Private Limited Company Having Its Registered Office At Opp. Railway Station P.O. Burhar District Shahdol Madhay Pradesh Through Its Managing Director Padam Kumar Singhania S/o Late Shrawan Kumar Singhana Aged About 60 Years., District : Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Chief Engineer PWD Bilaspur Zone Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Superintending Engineer PWD Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Executive Engineer PWD Pendra Division Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : None For Respondents/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/02/2025 Heard on admission. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may be kindly pleased to call for the entire records of the Reference Petition No. 08/2019 kept in the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 (ANNEXURE P-4) passed by the Ld. C.G. Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Petition No. 08/2019 and restore the Reference Petition for hearing. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application of the petitioner seeking time to deposit deficit court fee and grant sufficient time to the petitioner preferably four months, enabling the petitioner to deposit the deficit court fee. 10.4 That, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10.5 That, the Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case may further be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. None for the petitioner even in two round. 3. It appears that the petitioner filed a reference petition under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1983 before the Court below. In that petition, the petitioner claimed Rs.36,31,46,000/- from Chhattisgarh State Government Public Works Department. The petitioner was required to deposit court fee Rs.54,77,090/- and out of said amount, initially Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited. The petitioner was granted opportunity to pay court fee on 08.05.2019, 25.06.2019 and 30.07.2019, but total Rs.15,00,000/- was deposited by the petitioner against court fee. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 14.08.2019 exercising power under Clause 51(c) of Madhyastham Adhikaran Regulation 1985 rejected the reference petition for want of court fee. 4. In the present petition, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner and further the petitioner failed to deposit the court fee, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made for interference. 5. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No Costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti