Contractor cannot claim payment for unauthorized excess work after accepting final payment without protest.

The petitioner, a registered contractor, was awarded a contract (Agreement No. 44F-2/2012-13) for the construction of a PCC road in Munger for Rs. 5,50,205.

The petitioner claimed he executed additional works (widening the road) worth Rs. 2,38,000 based on oral instructions and endorsements on a Measurement Book, which the department refused to pay.

In a first round of litigation (CWJC No. 5436 of 2014), the High Court dismissed the writ petition due to disputed facts but granted liberty to seek arbitration.

The petitioner then approached the Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal (Reference Case No. 64/2015), which dismissed the claim with costs of Rs. 10,000 on 16.05.2019.

The petitioner filed the present writ seeking to set aside the Tribunal’s award.

1. Whether the Arbitration Tribunal committed an error in law or fact by rejecting the claim for additional work in the absence of a formal supplementary agreement or work order.

2. Whether a contractor can raise additional claims after accepting the final contractual payment without protest.

3. Whether the High Court, under Articles 226 and 227, can interfere with a reasoned arbitral award involving factual appreciation.

The Court applied the principle that contractual liability upon the State for extra work only arises when such work is duly authorized through a supplementary agreement or formal work order as per departmental procedure.

It relied on the precedent set in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 424, Union of India v. Master Construction Company (2011) 12 SCC 349, and ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. v. ANS Constructions Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 373, which establish that once a contractor accepts payment in "full and final settlement" without contemporaneous protest or proof of coercion, they are estopped from raising further claims.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner failed to produce any valid authorization, revised estimate, or supplementary agreement from a competent authority for the additional work.

It noted that the High Court in the previous litigation had already observed that mere endorsements on applications do not constitute valid authorization.

Furthermore, the petitioner accepted the final payment on 31.03.2013 and only raised a protest five months later, failing to prove that the settlement was viliated by coercion or duress.

The Court emphasized that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 is limited; it cannot act as an appellate body to re-evaluate evidence unless the Tribunal’s decision is patently illegal, perverse, or suffers from a jurisdictional error, none of which were found here.

It held that a contractor cannot claim for unauthorized extra work, especially after receiving full and final payment without protest.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and all pending interlocutory applications, affirming the Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioner’s claim.