1 2025:CGHC:21169-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 302 of 2025 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Respondent No.1) 2 - Department of School Education Through The Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (CG) (Respondent No.2) 3 - Collector Jashpur District Jashpur (CG) (Respondent No.3) 4 - District Education Officer Jashpur District Jashpur (Cg) (Respondent No.4) 5 - Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Services, Jashpur Division District Jashpur (CG) (Respondent No.6) ... Appellants versus 1 - Purushottam Banerjee S/o Shri Jogeshwar Banerjee Aged About 46 Years R/o Sanna Road Tehsil And Thana Jashpur District Jashpur (CG) (Petitioner) 2 - Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri Through Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Kunkuri District- Jashpur (CG) (Respondent No.5) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.05.09 10:29:32 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 08.05. 2025 1. Heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advcoate General for the State/appellants. Also heard Mr. Bhuvneshwar Singh Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. Heard on I.A. No.02/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 59 days has been filed by the appellant. 3. For the reasons assigned in the application (I.A. No.02/2025), the same is allowed. Delay in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 5. By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s):- “It is therefore prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the appeal of the appellants/State and further may kindly be pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 02/01/2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WPC No.6358/2024, Purushottam Banerjee Vs. 3 State of Chhattisgarh and 5 Others, in the interest of justice. This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass an appropriate order as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 6. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.6358/2024 (Purushottam Banerjee v. State of Chhattisgarh and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been disposed of. 7. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge is that the work allotted to the writ petitioner has been completed by him which is evident from Certificate of Appreciation, hence, the writ petitioner was entitled for the undisputed amount and the respondents cannot deny their liability to pay the said amount. 8. Being aggrieved with the invoice dated 30.12.2022, respondent No.1/writ petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (C) No.6358/2024 before the learned Single Judge, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.01.2025. 9. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the respondents therein/State. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that 4 from the enquiry report submitted by 5 Member Committee, it is apparently clear that no administrative approval/sanction has been accorded for the work, therefore the claim of the writ petitioner is per se illegal and baseless and without any basis. It has been contended that the writ petition was listed on admission on 02.01.2025 and on the said date, it has been disposed off by without granting opportunity to the appellants/State to rebut the grievances of the writ petitioner, with a direction to make the payment to the writ petitioner. It has been further contended that no work order was ever issued to the writ petitioner and any work that has been performed cannot be said to be in accordance with law or the rules made thereunder. It has been lastly contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, as such, the instant appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants/State and submits that when the matter was taken up for hearing on 02.01.2025, learned State counsel has submitted before the learned Single Judge that if the work had been completed and after the verification of the same, the undisputed amount, if any, would be released within a stipulated period. He further submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed 5 impugned order dated 02.01.2025, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as materials available on record. 13. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the State/respondents therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and particularly considering that the work allotted to the petitioner by the respondents has been completed, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the District Education Officer/respondent No.4 to release the undisputed amount to the petitioner after verification the same, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the writ petition is disposed.” 14. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the State before the writ Court that if the work had been completed and after the verification of the same, the undisputed amount, if any, would be released within a stipulated period, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable 6 reasons and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.6358 of 2024 (Purushottam Banerjee v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 15. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu