-1- 2025:CGHC:38811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 358 of 2024 Nitesh Tiwari S/o Shri G.P. Tiwari Aged About 43 Years R/o Vasundhara Heights, Flat No. 108, Chopdapara, Near Kamlesh Netralaya, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - M/s Brijmohan Agrawal Through Proprietor, Brijmohan Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Tara Chand Agrawal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Bazar Road, Lakhanpur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Represented By 2.1 - (A) Secretary Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2.2 - (B) The Superintending Engineer Pwd National High Ways, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2.3 - (C) Executive Engineer Pwd, National High Ways, Ambikapur Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 05.08.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the Execution Case No. 08/2016 from the learned District Judge Ambikapur for its kind perusal and consideration. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ quashing and setting the order dated 06.02.2024 (ANNEXURE P-1). 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Mr. Amrito Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the office of Executive Engineer, PWD at Ambikapur. He would contend that pursuant to the award passed by the Sole Arbitrator on 07.09.2014, an application for execution was moved before the learned District Judge, Ambikapur on 21.01.2016, and in the said proceeding, a warrant was issued vide order dated 06.02.2024, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be sent to civil jail. He would further submit that on the date of the award, the petitioner was not posted at Ambikapur, and further, the award holder ought to have moved an application for attachment of the property instead. He would pray to set aside the order dated 06.02.2024. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would oppose the prayer and submit that the award was passed by the Sole Arbitrator on 07.09.2014 and the same was affirmed by the learned District Judge in -3- proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vide order dated 01.01.2016, and was further affirmed by the High Court in Arbitration Appeal No. 26 of 2016 decided on 21.04.2023. He would further submit that the original award was passed to the tune of Rs.1,64,88,959/-, comprising (i) Rs.82,60,206/- for work done, (ii) Rs.12,00,000/- as performance security amount withheld, (iii) Rs.13,43,753/- as security amount withheld, and (iv) Rs.56.85 lakhs towards the loss of expected profit, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 01.11.2010. He would contend that the application for execution was filed when the petitioner and the department failed to satisfy the award; thus, the impugned order has rightly been passed against the petitioner. 4) Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General, would also oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed in the file. 6) Taking into consideration the fact that the award holder ought to have moved an application for attachment of property instead of proceeding under Order 21 Rule 37 of the CPC for sending the petitioner to civil jail, and further considering that the petitioner is government servant and such an order would adversely affect his service career, therefore, the order dated 06.02.2024 is hereby set aside. The interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. 7) The learned Executing Court is directed to conclude the proceedings of the -4- execution case in accordance with the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendrakumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418. 8) The award holder would be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned Executing Court. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM