Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7376
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
M/s D.A. Enterprises Through - Proprietor Dinesh Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Public Works Department – Respondent
WPC No. 5194 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava
For the Respondents:Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General
A party must exhaust alternative remedies, such as arbitration, before seeking judicial intervention in contract disputes.
Headnote:(A) Relevant laws include the contractual obligations pertaining to forfeiture of deposits and arbitration clause included in the agreement. The petitioner challenged the respondents' non-finalization of the work agreement following completion of work and sought to quash the rejection of the contract closure.
(B) Key legal principles discussed include the requirement for responding authorities to provide justifiable reasons for actions taken under the contract and the availability of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution method.
(C) Facts of the case highlight that the petitioner completed work per the agreement yet faced financial loss due to retentions by the government, with reference to the acknowledgment of incomplete work being not the petitioner’s fault.
(D) The court framed issues about the legality of contract closure and adherence to the agreement’s terms, particularly concerning the petitioner's right to challenge decisions made. (E) The findings established that the petitioner has an alternative remedy via arbitration and the court declined to entertain the writ petition without exhausting it. (F)
Result: The writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage, with liberty to utilize other legal remedies. (Paras 3, 4, 9, and 10)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court proceedings regarding the ordering and administrative responses. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioner's claims regarding contract finalization and illegal withholding of payments. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. opposition from respondents cites procedural non-compliance. (Para 5) |
| 4. existence of arbitration clause as a remedy. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. decision to dismiss the petition without proper remedies exhausted. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
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 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 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, 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 a
