Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Rean Water Tech Private Limited A ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 May, 2026
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505
1 WP-13692-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV
ON THE 5th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 13692 of 2026
M/S REAN WATER TECH PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Ravindra Dixit, Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5/State.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, Senior Advocate with Shri Kartik Karara and Shri
Prashant Mishra, Advocates for respondent Nos. 6 to 8.
ORDER
Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Kindly set aside the order dated 07.04.2026 passed by Arbitration Tribunal
b) quash order dated 09.02.2026 passed by respondent no. 3 and approved by respondent no.2 (communicated to the petitioner on 10.02.2026);
c) Kindly quash any incidental or consequential order passed pursuant to order dated 09.02.2026;
d) Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded and
e) Any other relief may be given which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case"
2. Since the controversy in the present case lies in a very narrow Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 07-05-2026 18:05:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505 2 WP-13692-2026 compass and the petition can be disposed of on the concessional statement made by Shri Khedkar, therefore, detailed description of factual matrix is avoided.
3. It is the case of petitioner that respondents issued NIT dated 14/11/22, inviting tenders for "SADA Multi Village Scheme, District Gwalior", in single package on "Turn-key Job Basis." The duration of work, as contemplated in the NIT, was 18 months from the 21 st day after issuance of Letter of Acceptance. The petitioner was required to establish, repair, and operationalize infrastructure for ensuring proper supply of water in 28 villages which were covered under the Special Area Development Authority (SADA). The petitioner's bid was accepted and he commenced the work on 25/3/2023. It is the case of petitioner that work in certain locations for construction of Master Balancing Reservoir and two Overhead Tanks was delayed due to failure of the respondents to acquire land in the reserved forest area. Petitioner had also intimated about serious damages to the pipeline which was to supply raw water from Tighra Dam to the Water Treatment Plant due to heavy and incessant rains during the monsoon in the year 2024, as well as in the previous years. The 6th Running Account Bill submitted by the petitioner was repeatedly returned by the Officers of respondents with varying and additional remarks, which resulted in prolonged administrative delay and payment was released belatedly. Petitioner requested for extension of time for completing the contractual work as Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 07-05-2026 18:05:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505 3 WP-13692-2026 the work had remained unfinished for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. However, respondents abruptly passed the order of termination without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to show cause or to represent his case. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking interim relief in the case till the Arbitrator enters reference. The application was rejected by Commercial Court Gwalior by order dated 23/3/2026. Thereafter, petitioner received a letter dated 26/2/26 directing its authorized signatory to appear before respondent No. 7 at the Bhopal office, as the post of Project Director was vacant. It was further submitted that respondents have also issued a fresh notice inviting tender dated 27/2/26 for completion of balance work in the SADA project. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 9959/2026, thereby challenging the order of termination dated 9/2/26. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Arbitration Tribunal directly without pursuing the departmental remedy as contemplated under Section 8.7 of the NIT. This order was passed by this Court as the appellate Authority (Managing Director) had already applied his mind to the order of termination of contract by approving the same. Thus, this Court has found that the remedy of appeal would be an inefficacious one and consequently issued a direction for approaching the Arbitration Tribunal. The petitioner filed Reference Petition No. 33 of 2026 along with an application for stay. However, Arbitration Tribunal, by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 07-05-2026 18:05:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505 4 WP-13692-2026 impugned order, has not only rejected the interim relief but has also rejected the reference petition by passing the order dated 7/4/2026. The prayer for interim relief has been rejected primarily in the light of the 1st proviso to Section 17-A of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 ( for short "the Adhiniyam of 1983") and the reference has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the remedy enshrined under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam of 1983.
4. It is submitted by Shri Khedkar that by Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 2025 ( for brevity "the Adhiniyam of 2025") , 1st proviso to Section 17-A of the Principal Act has been deleted and, therefore, this Court can remand the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudicating the question of interim relief without taking note of 1st proviso to Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam of 1983.
5. So far as non-compliance of provision of Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam of 1983 is concerned, it was also fairly conceded by Shri Vivek Khedkar that as the order of termination was approved by the Appellate Authority, therefore, the remedy, as provided under Section 7- B of the Adhiniyam of 1983, may not be very efficacious, and thus the impugned order passed by the Tribunal may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to decide the reference application.
6. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 07-05-2026 18:05:02NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505 5 WP-13692-2026
7. The first question for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the reference application in the light of Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam of 1983 or not ?
Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam of 1983 reads as under:-
"7-B. Limitation.-- (1) The Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless--
(a) the dispute is first referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract; and
(b) the petition to the Tribunal is made within one year from the date of communication of the decision of the final authority :
Provided 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 to the Tribunal shall be made within one year of the expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), where no proceeding has been commenced at all before any Court preceding the date of commencement of this Act or after such commencement but before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990, a reference petition shall be entertained within one year of the date of commencement of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990 irrespective of the fact whether a decision has or has not been made by the final authority under the agreement.
(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless it is made within three years from the date on which the works contract is terminated, foreclosed, abandoned or comes to an end in any other manner or when a dispute arises during the pendency of the works contract :
Provided that if a reference petition is filed by the State Government, such period shall be thirty years."
8. So far as the question of referring the matter for decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract is concerned, the same was claimed to be inefficacious on the ground that appellate Authority itself has approved the termination order. The Tribunal has not considered the said aspect.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 07-05-2026 18:05:02NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505 6 WP-13692-2026
9. It is a well-established principle of law that complainant cannot be a judge of his own cause - Nemo judex in causa sua. The principle of natural justice ensures impartiality by prohibiting anyone with a personal or financial interest from deciding a case. This principle prevents bias, ensuring that the Adjudicator is neutral and independent in the dispute. The primary purpose is to ensure that not only justice is to be done, but it is seen to be done. Once the appellate Authority itself had approved the termination order, then any appeal to the appellate Authority would be inconsequential because there is every possibility that he would be adjudicating his own decision of terminating the contract.
10. Under these circumstances, if the petitioner is compelled to avail the remedy as provided under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam of 1983, then it would be a mockery of justice. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal committed an illegality by bypassing the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.9959/2026. Before rejecting the reference application, it was expected from the Tribunal to refer and consider the reasons put forward by the petitioner for bypassing the remedy, but that was not done.
11. Be that whatever it may be.
12. Since the rejection of the reference application in the light of Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam of 1983 cannot be upheld, therefore, the rejection of the reference application by order dated 7/4/2026 is hereby quashed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 07-05-2026 18:05:02NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505 7 WP-13692-2026
13. So far as the question of rejection of prayer for interim relief is concerned, the interim order was passed by the Arbitration Tribunal on 7/4/2026 on the basis of 1st proviso to Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam of 1983 and it was held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an interim order. However, the State, by notification published in the Official Gazette on 30th of April 2026, has brought the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam 2025 , thereby deleting 1st proviso to Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam of 1983. The said amendment is in relation to procedural law and therefore it can be safely said that it will have a retrospective effect. It was also fairly conceded by Shri Khedkar that the amendment will apply retrospectively and therefore if the impugned order dated 7/4/2026 passed by the Tribunal on the basis of first proviso to S.17-A of the Adhiniyam of 1983 is set aside, then such order would not be infringing any provision of law. Thus, so far as the observation made by the Tribunal that it has no jurisdiction to pass an interim order in the light of the 1st proviso to Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam 1983 is concerned, the same is hereby set aside.
14. Under these circumstances, the entire order dated 7/4/2026 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to entertain the reference application and decide the stay application in the light of the amendment incorporated by the State thereby deleting the 1st proviso to Section 17-A of the Adhiniyam of 1983.
15. It is next submitted by counsel for petitioner that till the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 07-05-2026 18:05:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505 8 WP-13692-2026 interim application is decided by the Tribunal, this Court should direct the respondents not to finalize the fresh NIT for carrying out the balance work.
16. Considered the aforesaid submission made by counsel for petitioner.
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437, has held as under:-
"22. It is a settled legal proposition that the forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief to any litigant. If the court comes to the conclusion that the matter requires adjudication by some other appropriate forum and relegates the said party to that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period till the said party approaches the alternative forum and obtains interim relief. (Vide State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR 1952 SC 12] , Amarsarjit Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1962 SC 1305] , State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev [AIR 1964 SC 685] , State of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh "Balak" [AIR 1966 SC 1441 : 1966 Cri LJ 1076] and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke [(1976) 1 SCC 496 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 70 : AIR 1975 SC 2238] .)"
Thus, when this court has refused to entertain a writ petition on merits, then the writ petition cannot be entertained only for the purposes of passing an interim order.
18. Accordingly, the prayer for passing an interim order thereby restraining the respondent from finalizing the fresh NIT is hereby Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANAND SHRIVASTAVA Signing time: 07-05-2026 18:05:02 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14505 9 WP-13692-2026 rejected. Even otherwise, if fresh NIT is finalized and the balance work is also carried out, still the petitioner will not suffer any irreparable loss and he will have liberty to file a suit for compensation in case if it is found that the termination of the work contract was illegal. Furthermore, the work order was for the supply of water to the villages and, at the cost of thousands of villagers, the execution of work cannot be stayed for the simple reason that the contractor may suffer monetary loss. At the cost of repetition, it is once again clarified that the monetary loss will not be an irreparable loss because the petitioner will be entitled to recover compensation in case if the order of termination is held to be bad. Therefore, the prayer for stay is hereby rejected on the ground of maintainability.
19. With aforesaid observations, petition is finally disposed of.
20. No order as to costs.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA) (PUSHPENDRA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 07-05-2026
18:05:02