Madhya Pradesh High Court
Wpil Limited vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22948
1 WP-8089-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8089 of 2026
WPIL LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naman Nagrath - Senior Advocate with Shri Himanshu Mishra, Advocate and
Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh - Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Siddharth Sharma, Advocate along with Shri Mayank Upadhyay, Shri Satyam
Shukla, Shri Lavkush Rathore, Advocate for Respondent.
Dr. S.S. Chauhan - Government Advocate for Respondents/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice
1.The petitioner impugns the order dated 06.09.2025, whereby the respondent, inter alia, has reopened the alleged approved variation order dated 29.03.2022 and further recovery sought to be made from the petitioner.
2. Petitioner was awarded a contract for the execution of works of Engineering, Procurement, Construction, Testing, Commissioning, Trial Run and Operation & Maintenance of various components of Vaidhan-1 Multi- Village Scheme, District Singrauli (M.P.). As per the petitioner, there was a decision on variation to the scope of work which was approved by order dated 29.03.2022 and both parties had been acting on the variation order.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 20-03-2026 15:01:12NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22948 2 WP-8089-2026 However, subsequently by impugned decision dated 06.09.2025, the variation order has been reviewed and recovery is sought to be made against the petitioner.
3. The NIT provides for Dispute Resolution System in Clause 8.7 which reads as under :
"8.7. Dispute Resolution System
i) No dispute can be raised anywhere else except before the Competent Authority, i.e. Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh Jal Nigam, in writing after giving a full description and grounds of the dispute. It is clarified that merely recording a protest while accepting measurement and/ or payment shall not be considered as raising a dispute.
ii) Limitation: No dispute can be raised after 45 days of its first occurrence. Any dispute raised after expiry of 45 days of its first occurrence shall not been entertained, and the Employer shall not be liable for claims arising out of such dispute.
iii) After receiving the dispute, it shall be put up within the MPJN Technical committee for discussion & recommendations to the Competent Authority, i.e. Project Director, who shall decide the matter within 45 days.
iv) Appeal against the order of the Competent Authority, i.e. Project Director, must be preferred within 30 days to the Appellate Authority, i.e. Managing Director of MPJN. The Appellate Authority, i.e. Managing Director (MD) of MPJN, shall decide the dispute within 45 days.
v) Appeal against the order of the Appellate Authority can be referred before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam,1983.
vi) The contractor shall have to continue execution of the works with due diligence, notwithstanding the pendency of a dispute before any authority or forum.
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. When the impugned order was passed, petitioner raised a dispute in terms of Clause 8.7, which was decided on 08.12.2025 against which petitioner filed an appeal on 07.01.2026. We are informed that the appeal has been disposed of by order dated 13.03.2026 after the filing of the present petition.
5. Be that as it may, since the clause on Dispute Resolution System Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHAM THAKKER Signing time: 20-03-2026 15:01:12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22948 3 WP-8089-2026 provides that all disputes would be resolved in terms of Dispute Resolution System and in case, petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the dispute can be referred to the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.
6. We are of the view that the petitioner should exercise the option of approaching the Arbitration Tribunal in terms of the agreed upon Dispute Resolution System.
7. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the present petition and relegate the petitioner to exercise its remedy in Clause 8.7 under the Dispute Resolution System. The Tribunal shall expeditiously consider and decide on the pleas of the appellant that the appeal filed by the appellant in terms of the Dispute Resolution System was disposed of by the same authority i.e. Managing Director who passed the original impugned order dated 08.12.2025; no opportunity of personal hearing was granted before passing the order dated 06.09.2025 and due procedure was not followed in accordance with law.
8. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Shub
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHAM
THAKKER
Signing time: 20-03-2026
15:01:12