Advocates:
['ANKIT SINGHAL', '', 'Mehal Jethani', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WPC No. 2688 of 2022

M/s Keystone Infra Build (Formerly Known As Hind Himcon Associate) Na

Partnership Firm Duly Registered Under The Indian Partnership Act,

1932, Having Its Registered Office At A - 105, 1^st Floor, Bashir Ahmed

Complex, Link Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Partner Shri

Gaurav Agrawal.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Department of Public

Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

2.

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bastar Region,

Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

3.

The Collector And President, Zila Nirman Samiti, Collectorate,

Bijapur, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

4.

The Nodal Officer, Zila Nirman Samiti, Collectorate Bijapur, District

Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

5.

The Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department, Zila Nirmal

Samiti, District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner

: Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate.

For Respondents

: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

2

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri

Parth Prateem Sahu

, Judge

Order on Board

Per

Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

18

.07.2022

Heard Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate,

appearing for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner, who is registered as Class – A contractor,

participated in respect of tender No. 10, dated 24.05.2021, issued by the

respondent No. 3 for development of Loha Dongari at Bijapur with

estimated cost of Rs. 370.10 Lakhs. The petitioner was awarded the work

by an order dated 29.06.2021. In terms of tender notice, the work was to

be completed within a period of six months

3.

A show-cause notice dated 29.11.2021 came to be issued alleging

that the petitioner has no intent and interest in completing the work within

the stipulated period of six months.

4.

The petitioner submitted a reply on 07.12.2021 seeking to justify the

delay that had occasioned. Despite submission of the reply, another

show-cause notice dated 08.12.2021 came to be issued calling upon the

petitioner to respond to the same observing that the petitioner had not

filed reply to the earlier show-cause notice.

3

5.

By letter dated 17.12.2021, the petitioner informed the respondent

No. 4 that show-cause reply had already been submitted.

6.

On 18.12.2021, the petitioner requested for extension for a period

of two months upto 28.02.2022.

7.

Another show-cause notice dated 02.03.2022 came to be issued

with the allegation that the petitioner is not seeking to complete the work

within the stipulated period of time.

8.

Response was filed by the petitioner and in the interregnum, the

petitioner, by various letters, had demanded payment of running bills.

9.

Subsequently, by an order dated 27.05.2022, the respondent No. 3

terminated the work order, blacklisted the petitioner for indefinite period

and also levied a penalty of 10% amount of remaining work.

10.

The writ petition was filed assailing the aforesaid order dated

27.05.2022.

11.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents had filed

an application for taking a document dated 04.07.2022 on record .

12.

Document dated 04.07.2022 is an order passed modifying the

period of blacklisting for the period of ten years from earlier “indefinite

period”.

13.

Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits

that the terms and conditions of the tender notice, at Clause 28, contains

provision for arbitration with regard to any dispute relating to the contract

4

in question and therefore, this writ petition ought not to be entertained

and the petitioner may be relegated to avail remedy in terms of the tender

notice.

14.

Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner does not

dispute