Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1598 of 2025 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 1 - Adarsh Kiraya Bhandar Through- Sole Proprietor- Navneet Singh Chawla S/o Late Kuldeep Singh Chawla Aged About 44 Years, Address- Phool Chowk, Opp. Navin Market Behind Vithal Mandir, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G) 3 - The Executive Engineer Public Work Department (B/r), Division- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
there is no dispute whatsoever in respect of the amount payable to the petitioner, there is no reason why the same should not be released. Paucity of funds can never be a ground for not releasing the admissible dues of a person. 5. The State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the petition submits that the petitioner infact, by way of writ petition, has filed a Suit for recovery or a money Suit, which under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Further contention of the 3 State counsel is that, for the settlement of dues or for settlement of claim arising out of a contract, writ remedy is not a solution. The petitioner ought to have approached the competent Civil Court or should have raised an arbitration dispute for releasing of the money, if any, if at all he is entitled for. Thus, prayed for rejection
Arguments
:- Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, & Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocates For State :- Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 27.03.2025 1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in this petition is for a direction to the respondents to release admissible dues payable to the petitioner amounting to Rs.36,86,768/- against the work, which the petitioner had done for the respondents. 2 2. Brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner is engaged in construction business and had got a tender for providing as well as organizing the boundary barricading for Maa Bamleshwari Bhumi Pujan Ayojan Karyakram in Dongargarh for round about 5000-6000 people and the said programme was to be held on 02.03.2021. The petitioner executed the work to the satisfaction of the respondents without any demurrer. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there has been no dispute between the parties in respect of nature, quality and quantity or time taken by the petitioner in the completion of work. After completion of the said work, the petitioner raised his bills and the respondent No. 4 has approved and recommended for payment of amount of Rs.36,86,768/- to the petitioner. But, the respondents have not released a single penny even though about three years have passed. 4. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that, once when
Decision
of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, what cannot be lost sight of is that the admitted factual position that of petitioner being awarded a contract by the respondents. The petitioner discharged his contractual obligation by executing the work to the satisfaction of the respondents. From the correspondence that are made available with the writ petition, there does not seem to be any dispute in respect of quality and quantity in respect of executed work, nor is there any dispute in respect of time taken by the petitioner in the execution of the said work. 7. Under the given circumstances, the question is, should the petitioner be relegated to approach the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit for redressal of his grievances particularly when there is no dispute between the parties. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 553 has held as under :- “23. It is clear the above observations of this Court, once the State or an 4 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 the abovesaid contravention of requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding 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 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.” 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India & Another Vs. SECL Ltd. & Others, (2008) 3 SCC 440 in paragraph 15 to 18 has held as under :- “15. When supply of sugar was made in terms of a statutory order as also on the the Central directions Government and in the cases there did not exist any factual dispute, we do not issued by 5 see any reason as to why the writ petitions would not be maintainable. 16. It is now no longer res integra that contractual disputes involving public law element are amenable to writ jurisdiction. In these cases, the Central Government not only scrutinized the bills but also verified the claims of the respondents. A direction was issued to make payment. Appellant, which is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, withheld payment without any legal justification. 17. The High Court referred to several letters issued by the Central Government to arrive at the conclusion that where sugar had been lifted by a third party without any complaint, protest or demur of shortages, there was no reason as to why payment therefore could not be made. 18. Appellant could not have withheld payment on the basis of the purported shortages in supply of sugar under the contracts made by the respondents many many years back, save and except under the terms of binding contract.” 10. Similar view was also taken by the Supreme Court in case of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2011(2)SCC439, wherein it has been held that order of payment of money which is admissible and where there is no dispute, can be made in a writ proceedings in exercise of powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Following the aforesaid judgments of Supreme Court, the Division Bench of this Court in Om Sai Traders & Tent House Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, WA No. 38 of 2015, 6 decided on 19.02.2015, had set aside the judgment passed by the Single Bench dismissing a writ petition of similar nature and while allowing the Writ Appeal, relying upon the aforesaid judgments, has held as under:- “6. In absence of any disputed facts or dispute regarding the amount of money being involved, we are not inclined to relegate the Appellant to the remedy of a Civil Suit. 7. Let the remaining dues of the Appellant reckoned the in accordance respondents letter dated 22.03.2014 and 26.03.2014, after adjustment of the payment already made, be paid to the Appellant within a maximum period of four weeks the date of receipt and /or production of a copy of this order failing which the Appellant shall be at liberty to claim interest upon the same.” from to 12. Recently, this Court also in WPC No. 544 of 2020 in case of Vijay Kumar Garg Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. decided on 06.02.2020, had again considered the aforesaid judgments and allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to process the admissible claim of the petitioner and release the same, at the earliest. 13. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to immediately process the claim of the petitioner and to release admissible dues payable to the petitioner after adjustment of any payment either already made or any statutory deductions to be made from the dues payable to the petitioner. Let 7 the amount be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the said amount @ 6 percent per annum from the date the amount fell due till the payment is actually made. 14. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off. Vishakha Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge