Baba Vishwanath Constitution v. State of Chhattisgarh and others
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.02.18 17:19:55 +0530 2025:CGHC:8272-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 123 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Police Station, Rakhi, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal, Water Management Division, Janjgir, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Respondent No. 3) versus ... Appellants 1 - Baba Vishwanath Construction Through Its Proprietor Dheeraj Mishra, S/o. Late Shri Suraj Mishra, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Choubey Colony, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Petitioner) 2 - S.L. Yadav, Executive Engineer (Retired On 30-06-2021), Through Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 4) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants/State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.1 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellants/State as well as Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. I.A. No.01/2025 has been filed to condone delay of 92 days in preferring the writ appeal. 3. For the reasons assigned in the application (I.A. No.01/2025) supporting with the affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 92 days in preferring the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s): “It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the order dated 06/09/2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4873/2023 parties being “Baba Vishwanath Constitution Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others” may kindly be set
Decision
aside and consequently the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein may kindly be dismissed and the instant writ 3 appeal may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.” 5. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.4873 of 2023 (Baba Vishwanath Construction v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 is allowed. 6. The case projected by the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge is that writ petitioner was awarded work of providing and erection of three informative overhead sign board (swagat gates) including other civil works. Said work was to be completed within 45 days including rainy season. Work order was issued by respondent No.3 on 29.12.2017 and pursuant thereto, petitioner commenced the work, completed the same within stipulated period and submitted bills for payment on 14.2.2018. The work done by petitioner was duly verified by concerned SDO of the department. However, at the time of making payment of bills, an objection is raised that the then Executive Engineer i.e. respondent No.4, before awarding work to petitioner was not obtained prior permission/sanction from higher authorities. 7. Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the appellants herein, the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 preferred a writ petition being WPC No.4873 of 2023, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 06.09.2024 observing 4 that the respondent authorities cannot be permitted to withhold the payment of petitioner for the work done by him based on the work order issued by one of the officials of the State Government. Such act on the part of respondent authorities was arbitrary and if any procedure irregularity was committed by the then Executive Engineer, it is for the State Government to take action in accordance with law against such officer, however, from the pleadings in reply filed on behalf of the State and respondent No.4, it is reflecting that no action is taken against the official at fault. 8. Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/State. 9. Learned State counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned orders are illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with law as without considering the entirety of the aspects, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was awarded work and he has successfully completed the work and there is no dispute with respect to quality of work. However, total value of the work awarded to petitioner was Rs.29,44,344/- and as per Purchase Manual, 2002, the Executive Engineer was not authorized to award the work having value of more than Rs.50,000/- without 5 calling any tender or approval/sanction from higher authorities. It has been contended that there was an audit objection regarding award of work by the official of more value than his monetary jurisdiction to award and therefore, the amount due to respondent No.1 has rightly been withheld. It has been further contended that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by allowing the writ petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set- aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposes the submissions made by the learned State counsel for the appellants and submits that as the appellants have not complied with the order dated 06.09.2024 passed in WPC No.4873/2023, he has filed a contempt petition being CONT No.1460/2024 and only after filing the contempt petition, instant petition has been filed by the appellants/State. He further submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 12. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned order, we are of the considered 6 opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order while relying upon the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553, in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows :- “23.It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the above said requirement of Article 14 then we have no hesitation that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent…” 26. Therefore, this objection must also fail because in a given case it is open to the writ court to give such monetary relief also. 27.From the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the 7 maintainability of a writ petition :- (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.” 13. Learned Single Judge further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Surya Construction v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2019) 16 SCC 794, in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- “3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22-3-2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 8 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 2-5-20143 dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. (supra)).” 14. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in observing that undsiputedly respondent No.1 was awarded the work which he completed successfully and there is no objection on the part of authorities that there is any default on the part of respondent No.1 or there is any objection to the quality and quantity of work done by him. Hence, the appellants cannot be permitted to withhold the payment of respondent No.1 for the work done by him based on the work order issued by one of the officials of the State Government. Such act on the part of authorities is arbitrary and if any procedure 9 irregularity is committed by the then Executive Engineer, it is for the State Government to take action in accordance with law against such officer, however, it has been reflected that no action is taken against the official at fault. We also hold that the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the appellants to make payment of undisputed amount towards the work done by respondent No.1 expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of order passed in WPC No.4873/2023, after verifying facts. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 16. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu