1 2025:CGHC:15607-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1705 of 2025 M/s Brijesh Agrawal Through Vinay Kumar Agrawal, Power of Attorney Holder of Applicant Organization, S/o Sri Brijesh Agrawal, aged about 31 years, R/o Sharda Sada Vinoba Nagar,bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - P.W.D. Bridge Construction Division, Bilaspur Through -Engineer In Chief P.W.D., Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Bridge Construction Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Ramendra Kishore Prasad and Mr. Rahul Jha, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 . 04 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Ramendra Kishore Prasad and Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State / respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs : “(i) To issue writ/ order quashing the application of Respondent's Memo No. 682/SAC/Bilaspur/2024-25 dated 17-03-2025 being patently unlawful. (ii) To issue writ / order quashing the application of consequential effect of Respondent's Memo the No. 682/SAC/Bilaspur/2024-25 pertaining to forfeiture of earnest money, security deposit, encashment of FDR, encashment of Bank Guarantee and appropriation of pending on account bills of the petitioner etc. (iii) To grant further relief and cost to the petitioner as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent floated an e- procurement tender notice System Tender No.14023 NIT No. 205/TC/13-14 dated 26-07-2013. The petitioner participated in such e-procurement Tender and succeeded to receive a work order No. 4306/T0013/SAC/2013-2014/PWD BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION DIVISION BILASPUR Dated 14-12-2013. The total value of work was of Rs.2819.61 Lacs and time period was 20 months including rainy season with maintenance period of 36 months. The petitioner has completed 99% of work and the balance 1% work of drain in service road on Raigarh side is yet to be completed. The respondent issued several notices to the petitioner to complete the balance work, but as the same were 3 neither replied nor the balance work were completed by the petitioner, the respondent has terminated the contract through their Memo No. 682/SAC/Bilaspur/2024-25 dated 17-03-2025 with consequential effect of forfeiture the earnest money, security deposits and levy of compensation @10% of balance work of contract for 12 weeks upto a maximum amount of 6% of Contract value. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed 99% of work and the balance 1% work of drain in service road on Raigarh side can not be completed unless encumbrance free land for such work is provided by the respondent or a modified drawing approved by competent authority is provided with instruction to break the relevant width of already constructed service road and to construct drain there, which has not been provided by the respondent as yet and suddenly terminated the contract through their Memo No. 682/SAC/Bilaspur/2024-25 dated 17-03-2025 with consequential effect of forfeiture the earnest money, security deposits and levy of compensation @10% of balance work of contract for 12 weeks upto a maximum amount of 6% of Contract value. The respondent has kept pending 44th running account bill of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 25.66 Lacs, an FDR with maturity value of Rs. 143.24 Lacs and a bank Guarantee of Rs. 66.00 Lacs in addition to Security deductions @ 5% and Performance 4 Guarantee @5% from each running account bill and miscellaneous deductions from several on account bills which are payable to the petitioner, but the respondent for no fault of the petitioner is going to misappropriate these amounts causing undue enrichment of the State on the expanse of a common citizen. He further submitted that the petitioner had duly replied to all the letters mentioned in the termination memo of the respondent. He also submitted that the memo of termination has been issued only to unlawfully forfeit huge amount of the petitioner lying the hands of the respondent for undue enrichment of the State on the expanse of the petitioner. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that despite several notices were issued to the petitioner to complete the balance work, such as repairing the potholes near the approach slab in Korba leg, expansion joints etc., construction of overhead gantry board, construction of curbs along with the R.E. wall, disposal of unwanted construction material scattered here and there on the construction site, load test of deck slab of the bridge etc., but as the same were neither replied nor the aforesaid balance work were completed by the petitioner, therefore, impugned termination memo has been issued by the respondent authorities. 6. 6. From perusal of the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition and further taking into consideration, the rival submissions 5 advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that there is dispute relating to the meaning of specifications, designs, drawings and instructions mentioned in the contract agreement, which cannot be looked into in the present petition, as such, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. It is appropriate that the petitioner shall avail the remedy of arbitration clause mentioned in the contract agreement. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy before appropriate Forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra