DMAD16Ai aOg :tD1 i eHt 9I: aLA :2 l 5 MK0 y 7 2HM s +6 iAgE.00NnD 53 e 3. d 10 9 by Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief J O u r s d t e ic r e on Board

1. In the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus/directions/orders to the respondent No.1 and 2 as to release the amounts against the four pending bills of the petitioner with 12% per annum interest.

10.2 That, Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus/directions/orders to the respondent no.3 to release the funds immediately in the account of the respondent no.1 and 2 for payment of the same to the petitioner.

10.3 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.”

2. The facts as mentioned in the petition, in brief, are that the Petitioner, a Class ‘C’ contractor operating under the name M/s Kailash Construction and residing in Rajnandgaon, was awarded a construction contract for buildings of the Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal through an online tender process conducted by Respondent No. 1. After fulfilling all required formalities, including submission of a bank guarantee, an agreement was executed with Respondent No. 2 on behalf of the State of Chhattisgarh. In accordance with the agreement, the Petitioner commenced construction work by investing substantial funds, including loans. The work executed was duly inspected and approved by the competent officers, and four running bills were submitted over time. Despite approvals and repeated assurances from the Respondents, no payments have been released to the Petitioner. The Petitioner continued the work relying on these assurances, even while incurring significant financial liabilities such as labour wages, material costs, and loan repayments. Multiple representations and a legal notice were submitted; however, Respondent No. 2 responded that payment could not be made due to non-receipt of funds from Respondent No. 3. Facing severe financial hardship and having no alternative remedy, the Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate relief.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conduct of the respondents No.1 and 2 is very objectionable and contrary to the rights of the petitioner. Respondents No.1 and 2 are bound to release the monthly bill as raised by the petitioner as per the terms/conditions of the agreement. The construction work of the respondents No.1 and 2 are continue, the same has been certified by the deputed officers, the amount of the bill is undisputed, so the petitioner is entitled for the same. He further submits that respondents No.1 and 2 have conceded regarding the pending bill payment amount of the petitioner, thus, it is evident that the petitioner is facing hardships and economical crisis as to pay labour payment and other loans. He also submits that total four bills have been submitted by the petitioner, but till date no any amount against any of the bills has been released in favour of the petitioner. Though, the building under construction is for respondent No.3, but the authority of construction work and release of the funds are with respondents No.1 and 2. It has been further submitted that after submitting the bills, the petitioner has submitted several representations before the respondents No.1 and 2, not only that he had visited their office many times, but they have not initiated any action with regard to release of the amount of the bills. The petitioner served legal notice through his counsel, which was received and responded by respondent No.2 contending that the amount of the bills could not be released as the amount has not been received from respondent No.3. Such unjustified withholding of payment reflects administrative apathy and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its w