SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
YASHWANT NAYAK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/4687/2025



2025:CGHC:44842-DB NAFR Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date:

2025.09.04

10:25:11 +0530 WPC No. 4687 of 2025 Yashwant Nayak S/o Shri Vidyanand Nayak Aged About 38 Years R/o D-100, Chandrapur Road Raigarh Road, Baramkela, Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2 - The Director, Urban Administration And Development Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3 - The Joint Director, Urban Administration And Development Bilaspur Division District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - Collector District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

5 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

6 - Sub Engineer Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Prafull Bharat, Advocate General assisted No.1 to 4/State by Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

3.9.2025

1. Heard Mr.Akhand Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

“1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 namely the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, and the Sub-Engineer, Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, to forthwith prepare the final measurement book, prepare the bill and ensure due verification of the construction work already completed by the Petitioner in accordance with law;

2. Direct the Respondents to disburse the admitted and legitimate payment towards the aforesaid work executed by the Petitioner, within a time-bound period as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, so as to secure the ends of justice along with interest.

3. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the arbitrary and unjustified inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not preparing the bills and releasing the payments for the works executed by the petitioner under Nagar Panchayat Baramkela, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner was awarded several public works which were executed in time and to the satisfaction of the department. On 07.01.2025, the petitioner submitted his first application stating that three works had already been completed up to 80-90% and requested preparation of bills and release of payment. The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Baramkela, vide letter dated 02.01.2025, had already referred the matter for laboratory testing of construction materials, and the report dated 20.01.2025 confirmed that the works were of good quality with no deficiencies. Despite this, the petitioner's repeated reminders, including a second reminder sent both physically and through e-mail, were not considered. On 01.06.2025, the petitioner made a detailed representation referring to the earlier applications, clearly stating that although about 25% of the sanctioned amount had been allotted by superior authorities, the bills were not being prepared and the running bills had remained pending for the last eight months. Due to non- payment, the petitioner is unable to continue the construction work and is facing acute financial hardship, and the pace of public development works is being adv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top