1 (CR No. 187 of 2016) 2025:CGHC:486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 187 of 2016 1 - M/s Jaiswal Construction Through Its Proprietor- Ashok Jaiswal S/o Shri Ram Dhani Jaiswal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Pratappur, District Surajpur, Civil And Revenue District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Koria At Manendragarh, District Koria At Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Applicant :- Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 03.01.2025 1. This civil revision filed under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART 2 (CR No. 187 of 2016) (for short ‘the Act of 1983’) is directed against order dated 23.02.2016, passed by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short the ‘tribunal’) in Reference Case No.08/2015, whereby the reference petition preferred by the applicant herein has been dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation. 2. Mr. Anurag Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in line with clause 28 of the agreement between the parties, the applicant referred the dispute to the Superintending Engineer on 26.09.2014, but the same was rejected on 03.11.2014 holding that the dispute is not maintainable. Against which, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Chief Engineer on 05.12.2014, which was not decided for a very long time. Consequently, the applicant preferred the reference petition under Section 7- B of the Act of 1983 before the tribunal on 10.02.2015, but the same was rejected being time barred vide impugned order dated 23.02.2016, which is apparently contrary to the facts available in the records and, thus, also contrary to Section 7-B of the Act of 1983. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would support the impugned order. 3 (CR No. 187 of 2016) 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. In order to consider the dispute raised at the bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 7-B of the Act of 1983, which reads as under :- “ 7-B Limitation - (1) The Tribunal shall not admit a reference,- (a) in a case where a decision has been made in connection with a dispute under the terms of the agreement for a works-contract by the final authority under the agreement unless the reference petition is made within one year from the date of communication of such decision, if any; (b) in a case where a dispute has been referred to the final authority under the agreement and such authority fails to decide it within a period of six months from the date of reference to it unless the reference petition is made within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.” 6. A careful perusal of Section 7-B(1) would show that the Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless the dispute is first preferred to the final authority in terms with the agreement for a works-contract and the petition is made within one year from the date of communication of the decision of the final authority. Sub-section (b) to 4 (CR No. 187 of 2016) Section 7-B(1) would state that if the final authority fails to decide the dispute within a period of six months from the date of reference to it, the petition shall be made before the tribunal within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. 7. In the instant case, as per clause 28 of the agreement the dispute was first raised before the Superintending Engineer on 26.09.2014 but the same was rejected on 03.11.2014 holding that the dispute is not maintainable, against which the dispute was raised before the final authority/Chief Engineer on 05.12.2014, which he kept pending and did not decide. Ultimately, when the decision was not taken by the final authority/Chief Engineer, the applicant herein preferred the reference petition on 10.02.2015 before the tribunal under Section 7-B of the Act of 1983. As such, the applicant herein has preferred the reference petition before the tribunal in terms of sub- section (b) to Section 7-B(1) of the Act of 1983, which cannot be treated as barred by limitation and it is also not the case of the State that it has been filed prematurely. 8. In that view of the matter, the reference petition under Section 7-B of the Act of 1983 was filed before the tribunal on 10.02.2015, which was within the period of limitation. 5 (CR No. 187 of 2016) Accordingly, impugned order dated 23.02.2016 is hereby set aside and the tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of the reference petition of the applicant herein afresh on merits, in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 9. Accordingly, this civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!