Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 WP C No. 5194 of 2023 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.18 18:58:53 +0530 2025:CGHC:33957-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5194 of 2023 M/s D.A. Enterprises Through - Proprietor Dinesh Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri R.B. Mishra, Aged 53 Years, R/o F3, Alka Avenue, Colony Uslapur, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, CG 2 - Engineer - In – Chief, Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department Bilaspur Zone, District Code Area Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No. II, Beside Jhulelal, Dharamshala, Chakarbhata, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 WP C No. 5194 of 2023 6 - C.G. Road And Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, 3rd Floor, Sirpur, Bhawan Campus, Civil Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause title is taken from CIS) ... Respondents
Legal Reasoning
For Petitioner For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondents/ State. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 To call the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 01.06.23 (Annexure P-1) is in contravention of provisions stipulated under the agreement and is also perse illegal and bad. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order dated 01.06.23 (Annexure P-1). 10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct 3 WP C No. 5194 of 2023 the respondents to refund the amount forfeited under EMD, security deposit and additional security deposit along with interest @ 18%. 10.5 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to conclude the agreement under clause XIV of the agreement and to make payment of final bill to the petitioner in terms of the agreement with interest @ 18% per annum from the date the work was completed. 10.6 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to make payment for the extra work made by the petitioner as directed by them. 10.7 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the the petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities not finalizing the work agreement even after completion of work. The respondent authority had not paid the running bills, security deposit etc and had also utilized the petitioner company to perform some additional work. For which the petitioner preferred
Decision
a writ petition before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 21/11/2022 with a direction to the respondents to scrutinize the claim of the petitioner and to take an appropriate decision for closure of contract and for settlement of bills within stipulated period. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent authorities applying clause III of the agreement, 4 WP C No. 5194 of 2023 rejected the claim of the petitioner. The closure of the contract under Clause III is perse, illegal and bad in view of the fact that since the respondent authorities had failed to provide some portion of site which was under another department of State i.e. Public Health Engineering for which the petitioner cannot be penalized. Needless to mention herewith that a proposal for closure of the contract under Clause 14 was made however respondent No.5 in an illegal and arbitrary manner closed/ rejected the contract under Clause III. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has successfully completed his scope of work. He would submit that without there being any fault of the petitioner company, the respondent authorities are illegally withholding the amount in an arbitrary manner and the respondent authorities not refunded the amount forfeited under EMD, security deposit and additional security deposit alongwith interest and on account of the said inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is facing hefty financial loss. He further submits that the respondents failed to consider the report dated 01.08.2023 which specifically acknowledges that the incomplete work of the patch of 1627.85 meter was not attributable to the petitioner and the same was because of the existing pipeline of PHE construction of side drains. He also submits that the respondents failed to 5 WP C No. 5194 of 2023 consider that once there is an acknowledgment that no fault can be attributable to the contractor, the agreement cannot be terminated under Clause III and it should be a closure of contract under clause XIV of the agreement. He also submits that since extra work was completed the contract needs to be concluded. He would further submit that for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court and the same was disposed of vide order dated 21/11/2022 with a direction to the respondents to scrutinize the claim of the petitioner and to take an appropriate decision for closure of contract and for settlement of bills within stipulated period. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy as per the conditions enshrined in the tender document, approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ petition. 7. Perusal of the agreement, it appears that there is an arbitration clause No. 28 mentioned in the contract agreement executed between the parties for settlement of disputes through arbitration, which reads as under :- 6 WP C No. 5194 of 2023 “Clause 28 Arbitration Clause: Except as otherwise provided in this contract all question and dispute relating to the meaning of the specification, designs, drawings and instruction herein before mentioned as to thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract designs, drawings, specification, estimate, concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work, or a after the abandonment there of shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer for his decision, within a period of 30 (thirty) days of such an occurrence (s). There upon the Superintending Engineer shall give his written instructions and/or decisions, after hearing the contractor and Executive Engineer within a period of 15 (fifteen) days of such request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of parties. Upon receipt of written instructions or decisions, of Superintending Engineer the parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such instructions or decisions. If the Superintending Engineer fails to give his instruction or decisions in writing within a period of 15 (fifteen) days or mutually agreed time 7 WP C No. 5194 of 2023 after being requested and/or, if the party (es) is/are aggrieved against the decision of the Superintending Engineer, the aggrieved party may within 30 days prefer an appeal to the Chief Engineer, who shall afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The, Chief Engineer will give his decision within 30 (thirty) days, or such, mutually agreed period. If any party is not satisfied with the decision of the Chief Engineer he can file the petition for resolving the dispute through arbitration in the arbitration tribunal. A reference to Arbitration Tribunal shall be no ground for not continuing the work on the part of the Contractor. Payment as per original terms and condition of the agreement shall be continued by the Executive Engineer in accordance with clause 8 above.” 8. From perusal of the above arbitration clause, it appears that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available under the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents. Despite knowing the said fact 8 WP C No. 5194 of 2023 without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner straightaway approached this Court by filing the instant petition. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement executed between the parties, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies as may be available to him under the law, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Jyoti