Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.28 17:08:03 +0530 2025:CGHC:36402-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5585 of 2024 Chilkhani Indra Reddy S/o Shri Chilkhani Shaker Reddy Aged About 43 Years R/o Behind Kunjbihari Colony, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Public Health And Engineering, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Mission Director Jal Jeevan Mission, Neer Bhavan, Civil Line, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector / President District Water And Sanitation Mission, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Engineer And Member Secretary, District Water And Sanitation Mission, Division Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Health Engineering Department, (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 28.07. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to issue any fresh tender initiating proceedings for allotment of balance work which is allotted to the petitioner and is being performed engaging all resources. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 07/08/2024 passed by respondent no.4. 10.4. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to complete the balance work without any impediment. 10.5. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent company to refund the forfeited Earnest Money Deposited/Security Deposit, Performance Guarantee if any, alongwith interest, as the respondents have wrongly forfeited the same. 3 10.6. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent company not to take any action under any other clauses or sub clauses of the agreement as mentioned in the impugned order. 10.7. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered B-Class contractor bearing Registration No. CGeR20537 and possesses substantial experience in execution of contractual civil works, including supply and installation of water-related infrastructure. The petitioner, being eligible, participated in the tender floated for execution of UPVC/HDPE pipeline laying and construction of Overhead Tank under the Single Village Piped Water Supply Scheme in furtherance of the objectives of the Jal Jeevan Mission for Villages Manpur, Bhaisbod, and Sudiyal. It is submitted that the petitioner was found successful in the bidding process and accordingly, an agreement was duly executed in his favour. Pursuant to the said agreement, a formal work order dated 09.12.2022 was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner, to the best of his ability, commenced and continued execution of the work at the designated remote locations and was making significant progress, particularly in laying of UPVC/HDPE pipelines and construction of Overhead Tank 4 infrastructure. However, on 20.01.2024, the petitioner was served with a vague and non-specific show-cause notice by Respondent No.4 invoking Clause 3 and Clause 39 of the agreement, without clearly identifying any breach or default. The petitioner promptly submitted a categorical and detailed reply thereto, apprising the authorities about the status and progress of the ongoing work. It is further submitted that the petitioner continued to execute the work to the satisfaction of the authorities and completed major portions of the same in various villages. On 24.09.2024, even the Safe Bearing Capacity (SBC) test results were submitted, and on 16.08.2024, the HDPE pipes supplied by the petitioner were sent by the respondents for quality inspection to CIPET Dhanpuri, indicating that the works were being carried forward in normal course. In this backdrop, the petitioner was shocked to learn that the respondent authorities are initiating a fresh tender process for the same work, which he was already executing. Upon inquiry, the petitioner came to know of an impugned order dated 07.08.2024 which was never served upon him and was passed without any notice, hearing, or opportunity to explain, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Immediately upon learning of the said order, the petitioner submitted a representation requesting reconsideration of the decision. However, the respondents have failed to act on the said representation and are proceeding with fresh tendering, thereby jeopardizing the petitioner’s contractual rights and investment of labour and material. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate relief against the arbitrary and illegal action of the 5 respondents, which not only violates the terms of the contract but also infringes the petitioner’s fundamental right to fair treatment in administrative action. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner to approach before the appropriate authority as per Clause-29 of the Agreement, which provides for arbitration proceedings. 5. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petition. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the State and considering the fact that Clause-29 of the Agreement provides for an efficacious alternative remedy of arbitration, we are not inclined to entertain this petition at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy available under the arbitration clause before the competent authority. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with the above liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu