Shri Ram Creations Through Proprietor Akash Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mahila And Bal Vikas

1 - Shri Ram Creations Through Proprietor Akash Jaiswal, Aged 34 Years, S/o Shri Kailash Kumar Jaiwal, At - H. No. B- 11, Housing Board Colony, Kachana, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mahila And Bal Vikas Department Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Mahila And Bal Vikas Department Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Secretary Department Of Commerce And Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Through Chairman, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl A.G. For Respondent No.4/CSIDC : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 19/02/2025

Heard.

The petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking limited prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the application/representation (Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioner, within stipulated period.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after issuance of the Rate Contract, purchase order (Annexure P-3) was given by respondent No.3 for purchase of various items. He would further submit that due to pandemic outbreak and lockdown imposed by the Central Government, there was some delay in supply of goods, therefore, respondent authorities have made deduction of Rs.21,33,203/- and Rs.41,01,403/- totaling to Rs. 62,34,606/- against the rate contract prescribed for the year 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. He further submitted that, since the said delay was occurred due to Covid pandemic and lockdown imposed by the Central Government i.e. force majeure, therefore, respondent ought not to have deducted the amount to be paid to the petitioner, as such, aforesaid deduction is illegal. It is further submitted that for redressal of his grievance, petitioner 3 filed application/representation dated 09/02/2022 (Annexure P-1) before respondent No.2, but the same has not been decided yet, therefore, counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petition may be disposed of directing respondent No.2 to decide the representation filed by him. He further submitted that petitioner is ready to file fresh representation for redressal of his grievance.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to allow the limited prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep