2026:CGHC:14999-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1364 of 2026 Punia Construction Co. A Partnership Firm Having Its Registered Office At- House No. 30, Sector-13, Part-2, Hissar- 125001, Haryana (Through Its Authorized Signatory)

... Petitioner versus South East Central Railway Through Divisional Engineer Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Upadhyaya, Advocate (through virtual mode) along with Mr.

Shubham Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI Hon'ble Shr i Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

01/04/2026

1.

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Constitution of India calling in question the legality, validity and propriety Digitally signed by VED of the impugned order dated 16.03.2026, whereby the respondent–

PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date:

2026.04.04 South East Central Railway has terminated the contract awarded to the petitioner, as also the preceding 7-days notice dated 27.02.2026 and 48-hours notice dated 09.03.2026 issued under Clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract, primarily on the ground that the same are arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and have been passed without due consideration of the replies submitted by the petitioner.

2.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: 10.1 Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing and set aside the impugned termination order dated 16.3.2026, 7 days notice dated 27.2.2026, 48 hrs notice (17) dated 9.3.2026 passed by the Respondent Authorities, in the interest of justice.

10.2 Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent for restoration of contract or to consider the petitioner’s reply afresh;

10.3 Direct the Respondents to release all pending payments and compensate the Petitioner for the financial losses incurred due to idling of machinery and manpower caused by the delays attributable to the Railway.

10.4 Pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

3.

The brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in civil construction works, was awarded a contract by the respondent–South East Central Railway for construction of Road Under Bridges (RUBs) at various level crossings in the Bilaspur Division after being declared the lowest bidder. It is the case of the petitioner that from the very inception of the contract, execution of the work was seriously hampered due to continuous and substantial hindrances attributable to the respondent authorities, including non-handing over of clear sites, non-shifting of electrical lines and water pipelines, delay in providing drawings and approvals, and failure to arrange requisite traffic blocks. Despite repeated communications by the petitioner highlighting these obstacles and the idling of machinery and manpower at site, the respondent failed to remove the hindrances. The respondent itself acknowledged such delays and granted extension of time for completion of the work with Price Variation Clause (PVC) and without penalty, thereby admitting that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that by the time of the dispute, the petitioner had completed approximately 90–92% of the work.

******* It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent, in a mechanical and arbitrary manner, issued a 7-days notice dated 27.02.2026 under Clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract, to which the pe