M/s Sri Balaji Hast Udyog Through Sole Proprietor Pradeep Kumar Agrawal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Government Advocate 2-State For Respondent no. 3 : Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate appears through Video Conferencing 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board

10.11.2025

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case from the respondent authorities in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to forthwith release the admitted dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 1,14,545/- along with interest in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 19.08.2025 in light of order dated

23.07.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 2031/2024, Dhanvantri Chemicals Vs. State of C.G. & Others within stipulated time interval

10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner has supplied the goods as forming part in Annexure P-2. The value of the goods as mentioned is Rs. 1,14,545/- . The goods were supplied in the year 2023 however, till date payment has not been received. Petitioner has submitted a representation before respondent no. 2 on 19.08.2024, however, till date the decision on the pending representation has not been considered, therefore, direction be issued to respondent no. 2 to consider the representation, pass appropriate orders and to release undisputed amount in favor of petitioner at the earliest.

Per contra, learned counsel for State raises objection and would further submit that respondent no. 2, the then Assistant Commissioner of Tribal 3 Welfare Department, Raigarh without following due process of law has placed the supply order in favor of petitioner. As the said order was placed without following due process of law, obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, a Departmental Enquiry has been initiated against respondent no 2 which is pending consideration. The liability of payment of amount can be fixed only after the enquiry proceeding is concluded. However, when this Court posed question with respect to the quality and quantity of goods supplied by the petitioner and its utilization, learned State Counsel submits that as per the reply submitted, petitioner has supplied the goods as per supply order placed before him and the bill amount. He also submits that as per his information the goods supplied by the petitioner is also utilized and consumed.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that he is the agency who has floated rate contract and based on the rate, petitioner participated and became successful for supply of the goods for which he has submitted bid and it is the respondent no. 2 who has placed the order for supply of mosquito nets for which petitioner submitted his bid.

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with this writ petition.

As per the submission made by counsel for petitioner based on the rate contract petitioner has supplied goods as forming part of Annexure P-2 and further raised the bill Annexure P-3, however, till date amount has not be disbursed in favor of the petitioner and value of the goods is not paid till date.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, has held as under:- “10. It is clear from the above observations of this Court in the said case, though a writ was not issued on the facts of that case, this Court has held that on a given set of facts if a State acts in an arbitrary 4 manner even in a matter of contract, by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Court depending on facts of the said case is empowered to grant the relief. This judgment in K.N. Guruswamy V. State of Mysore [AIR 1954 SC 592 : (1955) 1 SCR 305] was followed subsequently by this court in the case of D.F.O. v. Ram Sanehi Singh [(1971) 3 SCC 864] wherein this Court held (SCC p. 865, para4) “By that order he has deprived the respondent of a valuable right. We are unable to hold that merely because the source of the right which the respondent claims was initially in a contract, for obtaining relief against any arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of a public authority he must resort to a suit and not to a petition by way of a writ. In view of the judgment of this court in K.N. Guruswamy case