Shri Amar Singh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh) connected matter & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 215
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 s. 12
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. In view of the above, it is directed that respondents No. 2 & 3 verify the claim of the petitioner as raised in the final bill and if the petitioner has completed the work as per the work 3 completion certificate and there is…
- Para 88. With the aforesaidobservations, all the writ petition stands disposed of.
Judgment
Shri Amar Singh Agrawal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ramniwas Colony, House No. Bw/11, Namnakala, Ambikapur, District - Surguja Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant 1 - Mr. Sambit Mishra Collector-Cum-President, District Mineral Fund, Bijapur, District - Bijapur Chhattisgarh 2 - Mr. Neel Prakash Sub Divisional Officer E/m L.M.T./w And Gates, Sub- Division Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh (Cause title, as taken from CIS) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06/08/2026
#1. This contempt petition has been preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 arising out of order dated 20.01.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 303 of 2025 (M/s. Soham Groups Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) and other connected matter. 2
#2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 /contemnor submits that after order under contempt dated 20.01.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No. 303 of 2025 and other connected matters, an enquiry was conducted, in which, six officials of Administrative and Technical Enquiry Committee submitted report vide Annexure R / 1-2 dated 26.06.2025 to the Collector, (District Mineral Fund), District Beejapur. As per enquiry report, work of construction and installation of pump house and motor pump was entrusted to applicant/petitioner without following the due tender proceeding. It is further submitted that the estimated cost of the total work was Rs.2,40,00,000/- and the applicant petitioner was paid Rs. 96,00,000/- as first installment; however, in the enquiry, it was revealed that total value of the work executed by the applicant / petitioner was Rs. 68,53,297/-. Therefore, a recovery order has been issued to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) to recover a sum of Rs. 27,46,703/- from the applicant/petitioner.
#3. Learned counsel for the applicant / petitioner would submit that applicant / petitioner wants to challenge the enquiry report prepared by Govt. officials of the Administrative and Technical Inquiry Committee and submitted to the Collector, (District Mineral Fund), District Beejapur vide Annexure R 1-2.
#4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
#5. This Court , vide order dated 20.01.2025 passed in WPC No. 303 of 2025 & other connected matters, has passed the following orders in paragraphs 7 & 8, which read thus :-
#7. In view of the above, it is directed that respondents No. 2 & 3 verify the claim of the petitioner as raised in the final bill and if the petitioner has completed the work as per the work 3 completion certificate and there is no dispute to the work done by the petitioner, the claim raised by the petitioner be released within a period of 50 days from today.
#8. With the aforesaidobservations, all the writ petition stands disposed of.
#6. As contended by learned counsel for the respondents/contemnor and has also mentioned in its reply, the petitioner has been disbursed much more amount, than the value of the work actually completed by him; consequently, an order has been issued for the recovery of the excess payment amounting to Rs. 27,46,703/-.
#7. In view of above, it is found that order under contempt has been complied with. Though, amount claimed by applicant / petitioner has not been paid, but respondent authorities are raising objection with regard to the work done by the applicant / petitioner, therefore, I do not find any reason to proceed further in the matter initiating contempt proceeding against the respondent.
#8. Accordingly, contempt proceeding is dropped and the rule is discharged. However, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge said enquiry report dated
26.06.2025 (Annexure R /1-2) in accordance with law.
#9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of merits of dispute exists between the parties. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY KUMAR DUBEY 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 215; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — s. 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 06 Aug 2026. The bench was NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.