2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 3865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/6221/2025
2026:CGHC:3811-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6221 of 2025
1 - Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o P.L. Mittal Aged About 59 Years Occupation - A Class Contrator R/o - Main Road Korba P.S. and Tehsil Korba, District - Korba (C.G.)
... Petitioner versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)
4 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Civil Lines District Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Naya Raipur, District -
Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondents
DMAA iOg D iHt I a LAl MK y HMsi A gEN nDed by
D19a:t3e2: :24052 +6.00513.209
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondents-State: Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
22-01-2026
1. The present writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11-11-2025 (Annexure-P/1) and 14-07-2025 (Annexure-P/2) and prayed the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-
aside the order dated 11/11/2025 (Annexure P-1)
passed by the Respondent No.6.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-
aside the order dated 14/07/2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Respondent No. 2 demoting the petitioner’s contractor Licence from Class ‘A’ to Class ‘B’.
10.3 That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Class contractor with unique ID No.CGeR01707 . The respondent No.1 issued a tender for construction of H.L. Bridge at Indrawati river in KM 1/8 on NH-30 to Khadakghat road under the supervision of P.W.D. Bridge Division Jagdalpur. The petitioner was also participated and declared L1. The work order was issued on 21-10-2022 and the total period under the work order for completion of work was 25 months. Due to high tension electricity lines, huge number of trees, illegal encroachment etc. the construction of project was obstructed time to time and when the petitioner intimated the difficulties to the respondent department, they made a communication on 07-01-2025 that the encroachments from the proposed site have been removed, high tension electricity wires have also been removed and and drawing has been issued on 14-02-2025. As the respondents issued the work order without clearing site having knowledge of dense forest and naxalite affected area. Considering the difficulties, the respondent No.3 extended the period of completion of work uptill 31-10-2026 vide its letter dated 12-03-2025. On 24-02-2025 the respondent No.3 submitted the revised drawing before the respondent No.2 for increasing the length of the bridge and then the petitioner was also directed to submit revised decision. The respondent No.4 forwarded it to respondent No.3 on 27-02-2025. The petitioner’s work for construction of bridge was running in its schedule with the object to complete it before 31-10-2025. All of sudden a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14- 05-2025 issued by respondent No.4 and he was directed to show cause as to why the work has not been completed which was obtained by the petitioner and why his category of licence should not be demoted. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 28-05-2025 assigning the reason and difficulties which he felt in the area. It has also been replied that the petitioner asked for police protection so tha