NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1598 of 2025

1 - Adarsh Kiraya Bhandar Through- Sole Proprietor- Navneet Singh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Chawla S/o Late Kuldeep Singh Chawla Aged About 44 Years, Address-

Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR Phool Chowk, Opp. Navin Market Behind Vithal Mandir, Raipur District-

Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G) 3 - The Executive Engineer Public Work Department (B/r), Division- Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner :- Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, & Mr. Sumit Jhawar, Advocates For State :- Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, P.L.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order On Board

27.03.2025

1. The relief sought for by the petitioner in this petition is for a direction to the respondents to release admissible dues payable to the petitioner amounting to Rs.36,86,768/- against the work, which the petitioner had done for the respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case is that, the petitioner is engaged in construction business and had got a tender for providing as well as organizing the boundary barricading for Maa Bamleshwari Bhumi Pujan Ayojan Karyakram in Dongargarh for round about 5000-6000 people and the said programme was to be held on 02.03.2021. The petitioner executed the work to the satisfaction of the respondents without any demurrer.

3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, there has been no dispute between the parties in respect of nature, quality and quantity or time taken by the petitioner in the completion of work. After completion of the said work, the petitioner raised his bills and the respondent No. 4 has approved and recommended for payment of amount of Rs.36,86,768/- to the petitioner. But, the respondents have not released a single penny even though about three years have passed.

4. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that, once when there is no dispute whatsoever in respect of the amount payable to the petitioner, there is no reason why the same should not be released. Paucity of funds can never be a ground for not releasing the admissible dues of a person.

5. The State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the petition submits that the petitioner infact, by way of writ petition, has filed a Suit for recovery or a money Suit, which under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Further contention of the State counsel is that, for the settlement of dues or for settlement of claim arising out of a contract, writ remedy is not a solution. The petitioner ought to have approached the competent Civil Court or should have raised an arbitration dispute for releasing of the money, if any, if at all he is entitled for. Thus, prayed for rejection of the writ petition.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, what cannot be lost sight of is that the admitted factual position that of petitioner being awarded a contract by the respondents. The petitioner discharged his contractual obligation by executing the work to the satisfaction of the respondents. From the correspondence that are made available with the writ petition, there does not seem to be any dispute in respect of quality and quantity in respect of executed work, nor is there any dispute in respect of time taken by the petitioner in the execution of the said work.

7. Under the given circumstances, the question is, should the petitioner be relegated to approach the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit for redressal of his grievances particularly when there is no dispute between the parties.

8