Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23310-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2774 of 2025 M/s Suvarnadeep Infra Private Limited, A Registered Company Under The Companies Act Through Its Authorized Representative Gottipati Venkata Subramanya Sairam Aged About 42 Years, S/o Gottipati Veera Venkata Koteswara Rao R/o 103, Amudalapalli Post Amudalapalli, Krishna Andhra Pradesh 521324, Presently Residing At Res Colony, Bijapur District Bijapur (Cg) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Public Health Engineering Department (Phed), Mantralaya Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Indarawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (Cg) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur Zone, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Cg) 4 - Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur Circle, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (Cg) 5 - Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission Public Health Engineering Division Bijapur (Cg) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2775 of 2025 M/s Suvarnadeep Infra Private Limited A Registered Company Under The Companies Act Through Its Authorized Representative Gottipati Venkata Subramanya Sairam Aged About 42 Years, S/o Gottipati Veera Venkata Koteswara Rao R/o 103, Amudalpalli Post Amudalapalli, Krishna Andhra 2 Pradesh 521324, Presently Residing At R E S Colony, Bijapur District Bijapur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Public Health Engineering Department (P H E D), Mantralaya Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur Zone, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Enginer, Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur Circle Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division Bijapur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2777 of 2025 M/s Suvarnadeep Infra Private Limited, A Registered Company Under The Companies Act Through Its Authorized Representative Gottipati Venkata Subramanya Sairam Aged About 42 Years S/o Gottipati Veera Venkata Koteswara Rao R/o 103, Amudalapalli Post Amudalapalli, Krishna Andhra Pradesh 521324, Presently Residing At R E S Colony Bijapur District Bijapur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Public Health Engineering Department (P H E D), Mantralaya Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur Zone, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division Bijapur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 3 WPC No. 2778 of 2025 M/s Suvarnadeep Infra Private Limited, A Registered Company Under The Companies Act Through Its Authorized Representative Gottipati Venkata Subramanya Sairam Aged About 42 Years, S/o Gottipati Veera Venkata Koteswara Rao R/o 103, Amudalapalli Post Amudalapalli, Krishna Andhra Pradesh 521324, Presently Residing At Res Colony, Bijapur District- Bijapur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Public Health Engineering Department (Phed), Mantralaya Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Indarawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur Zone, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur Circle, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission Public Health Engineering Division Bijapur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 2786 of 2025 M/s Suvarnadeep Infra Private Limited, A Registered Company Under The Companies Act Through Its Authorized Representative Gottipati Venkata Subramanya Sairam Aged About 42 Years, S/o Gottipati Veera Venkata Koteswara Rao R/o 103, Amudalapalli Post Amudalapalli, Krishna Andhra Pradesh 521324, Presently Residing At Res Colony, Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Public Health Engineering Department (Phed), Mantralaya Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Jagdalpur Zone, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 4 - Superintending Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur Circle, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division Bijapur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 12/06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner, in WPC No. 2774/2025 has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned termination order dated 11.03.2025 received on 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) as well as the subsequent action contemplated on the basis of the termination order by issuance of the NIT No. 18 dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner company to carry out the balance work to the tune of 25.56% within the period of one month. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 5 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. The petitioner, in WPC No. 2775/2025 has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned termination order dated 11.03.2025 received on 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) as well as the subsequent action contemplated on the basis of the termination order by issuance of the NIT No. 16 dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner company to carry out the balance work to the tune of 15.26% within the period of one month. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. The petitioner, in WPC No. 2777/2025 has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned termination order dated 11.03.2025 received on 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-9) as well as the subsequent action contemplated on the basis of the termination order by issuance of the NIT No. 15 dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner company to carry out the balance work to the tune of 26.45% within the period of one month. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 6 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 5. The petitioner, in WPC No. 2778/2025 has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned termination order dated 11.03.2025 received on 27.05.2025 (Annexure P/9) as well as the subsequent action contemplated on the basis of the termination order by issuance of the NIT No. 17 dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner company to carry out the balance work to the tune of 20.84% within the period of one month. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 6. The petitioner, in WPC No. 2786/2025 has prayed for the following relief(s): “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned termination order dated 20.05.2025 received on 29.05.2025 (Annexure P-6) in the interest of justice. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner company to carry out the balance work to the tune of 30.69% within the period of one month. 10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 7 7. Since the facts and issues involved in this batch of petitions are identical, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 8. WPC No. 2778/2025 is taken as the lead case. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that pursuant to different NITs floated by the respondent authorities for laying pipeline and providing household connections in different villages falling under various Blocks of District Bastar, the petitioner submitted its bid and he was allotted five different work orders. Agreements were entered into between the parties in this regard. The place where the work was to be carried out is a naxal affected area and as such the work could not be completed on the scheduled time. However, on anticipation of granting of extension, the petitioner continued to perform his work and as of now, a very small portion of the work is left to be completed. However, the respondent authorities instead of making payments for the work done by the petitioner, have floated new tenders for the same work which the petitioner has been doing. The petitioner-Company contacted the respondent authorities asking them to cancel the new tenders floated for the same work, but of no avail. 9. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had filed various petitions one of which being WPC No. 2663/2025 in which its was informed by the State/respondents that the work was got terminated way back on 11.03.2025 and as such, the petition was dismissed on 27.05.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the termination order. According to Mr. Sharma, the petitioner was never served with the order of termination dated 11.03.2025 prior to 27.05.2025 neither any notice was served to the petitioner before passing of the termination order dated 11.03.2025 and as such, the 8 principles of natural justice has not been followed. Mr. Sharma further submits that though there is an alternative mechanism provided for redressal of the grievance, however, looking to the facts and circumstances of these cases, these petitions deserves to be allowed. 10.On the other hand, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that when an efÏcacious alternate remedy is available to the petitioner in terms of clause 29 which provides for arbitration clause, these petitions deserve to be dismissed on this count alone. 11.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 12.From perusal of the pleadings and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that various NITs were floated for laying of pipelines in which the petitioner Company succeeded and got the work order. According to the petitioner, very small portion of work is left to be completed and the area being a naxal affected, the work could not be completed on time and as such, his work order has been terminated by the respondent authorities. 13.Be that as it may, clause 29 of the agreement (Annexure P/2, page 67 of WPC No. 2778/2025) provides for an arbitration clause which the petitioner has not taken recourse to. When an alternative and efÏcacious remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should have exhausted the remedy available to it where it can raise all its contentions and claims. Even otherwise, this Court cannot go into the disputed questions of fact as to what percentage of work has been completed by the petitioner Company and what percentage of work is still left to be done. It is settled law that the High Court should not 9 exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when it raises disputed question of facts. 14.In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, these petitions are dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to take recourse to arbitration clause as provided under Clause 29 of the agreement, if so advised. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.13 11:18:42 +0530