-1- 2025:CGHC:44761 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2849 of 2021 Bhanu Datta Singh, S/o Rabi Datta Singh Aged About 48 Years Director Technical M/s Singh Brothers Works And Engineering Pvt. Ltd. At - N.H.-49, Near Power Grid Substation H. Katapalli, Budhipadar, Jharsuguda, Pin - 768203, Odisha, District : Jharsuguda *, Orissa ... Petitioner versus 1- Union of India Through Chief Managing Director Ministry of Steel And Power, Udyog Bhawan Dr. Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi - 110011, District : New Delhi, Delhi. 2- The Chief Executive officer, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg - 490021, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3- N. Vamsi Krishna D.G.M. (Project) Longking Engg. India Pvt. Ltd. Qtr. No. B-1/06, Surya Vihar Colony Phase - Ii, Junwani, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Udho Ram Koshley, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Kumar Barik, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sumit Singh, Senior Panel Counsel Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.09. 2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to this matter. ii) That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to pay the undisputed bills which is due upon the respondents. iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct -2- the respondents in the nature of suitable writ which is deem fit in nature of this case is concerned. iv) Any other relief/ reliefs which may deem fit & proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Steel Authority of India Limited had invited a tender for expansion of the Boiler Unit and the contract was awarded to M/s. Longkind Engineering Private Limited. Subsequently, M/s. Longkind Engineering Private Limited awarded sub-contract to the petitioner for completion of the work. 3) Mr. Koshley would further submit that the petitioner has already completed the work as per the terms and conditions of the sub-contract entered into between M/s. Longkind Engineering Private Limited and the petitioner. He would contend that a sum of 1,25,57,012.96 is still outstanding against ₹ respondent No.3. He would further submit that a legal notice was issued to respondent No.3 on 20.11.2019, but till date, the balance amount has not been paid; thus, he prays that this writ petition may be allowed. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Sumit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India/respondent No.1, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Koshaley and contend that respondent No.3 is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, no writ can be issued against it. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed -3- on file. 6) A perusal of the pleadings made in the petition and the submissions advanced by Mr. Koshley make it clear that admittedly the contract was awarded to M/s. Longkind Engineering Private Limited by the Steel Authority of India Limited. Thereafter, agreement was entered into between M/s. Longkind Engineering Private Limited and the petitioner. Thus, there was no direct contractual relationship between the petitioner and respondents No.1 & 2. 7) Since respondent No.3 is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, no writ can be issued against it. 8) Considering the facts discussed above, the present petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. 9) However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail civil remedies available under law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim