Date : 30/03/2012 1. Present Civil Revision Application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 12 of Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1972, has been preferred by the petitioner - original claimant / contractor to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd.31/8/1998 passed by the learned tribunal in T.A.R. No.156 of 1996, so far as it relates to attribution of 15 months delay to the petitioner herein as well as order dtd.9/9/1999 passed in Misc.Civil Application No. 9 of 1998.
2. Ms.Archana Amin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that while considering the claims submitted by the petitioner with respect to the expenses to be incurred by the petitioner during the period of construction and/or difference in the price, the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding the petitioner responsible for 15 months delay. It is submitted that as such the finding given by the tribunal attributing 15 months delay to the petitioner is without any evidence and/or on no evidence. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the tribunal in so far as it relate to attribution of 15 months to the petitioner.
3. Present Civil Revision Application is opposed by Mr.Kabir Hathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents - State. He has submitted that the learned tribunal has discussed the question with respect to delay in exten-so and thereafter when it was found that both the parties have failed to lead any proper evidence with respect to the liability of either party for delay, to strike the balance, the learned tribunal has held each party liable for the delay of 15 months for the period from 18/11/1984 to 30/4/1987. Therefore, it is submitted that as such no illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in holding the petitioner liable for the delay of 15 months. It is submitted that as such the learned tribunal has tried to strike the balance and therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Civil Revision Application.
4. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and considered the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Tribunal, more particularly discussion with respect to delay in paragraph Nos.19 to 22 of the impugned judgement and award. It appears that the learned tribunal considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties on the aspect of delay and who was responsible for delay. However, on appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal found that there is no proper evidence on record led by the parties to fix the exact liability of either party for delay and by observing so, the learned tribunal has tried to strike the balance and held that each party is liable for delay of 15 months for the period approximately from 18/11/1984 to 30/4/1987. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to point out any evidence and/or material by which it can be said that the respondents were solely responsible and liable for the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, when the learned tribunal has held each party liable for delay of 15 months, it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. No illegality has been committed by the learned tribunal in dismissing the review application.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Civil Revision Application fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No costs.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik