1 2025:CGHC:32547 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3000 of 2021 1 - M/s Shivangee Construction Company A-3 Class Contractor Proprietorship Firm Having Its Office At Main Road, Sitamani Road, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh Through Its Proprietor Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri S. N. Singh Aged About 43 Years A-3 Class Contractor, R/o Main Road, Sitamani Road, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Division-Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Division-Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Bha/sa.), Division- Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records with regard to the case of the petitioner from the custody of respondent no.3 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and set aside/ quash the order dated- 03.06.2021 passed by respondent no.2 (Annexure P/12, page 48) and direct the respondent no.2 to re-hear the appeal and release Rs. 60 lakh to the petitioner with 18% interest. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was allotted balance work of improvement and BT (black topping) on Sargaon Saket Road, including the construction of a culvert, pursuant to the NIT issued on 15.11.2011. He would further submit that the petitioner successfully completed the work on 1.2.2013 and a completion certificate was issued in this regard on 12.11.2014. He would also submit that despite completion, when the respondent authorities failed to make payment of the pending bills, he made a representation before respondent No.3 but they 3 did not make payment and instead issued an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.7.98 lakhs against the petitioner on 1.2.2020. He would contend that the petitioner preferred WPC No.1284 of 2020 challenging the said recovery order, wherein this Court directed respondent No.3 to take a decision strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thereafter, the representation made by petitioner was rejected vide order dated 6.8.2020. He would further contend that the petitioner filed WPC No.2433 of 2020, in which liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach the Superintendent Engineer and thereafter the Chief Engineer, vide order dated 2.11.2020. He would also contend that the petitioner made a representation before the Superintendent Engineer and it was rejected on 17.2.2021. He would further argue that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief Engineer and a memo of appeal was sent through the registered post on 12.4.2021 within the prescribed period of 30 days. However, the Chief Engineer rejected the appeal vide order dated 3.6.2021 only on the ground that it was received on 18.5.2021 i.e. after the expiry of 30 days. He would also argue that despite the COVID outburst, the appeal was preferred within time and it was sent through the registered post before the expiry of 30 days, therefore, the Chief Engineer ought to have decided it on merits rather than rejecting it on technical grounds. He would pray to quash the order dated 3.6.2021 passed by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Bilaspur. -4- 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the appeal was preferred after the expiry of 30 days and it was in contravention to clause 28 of the agreement. Hence, the Chief Engineer rightly dismissed the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. It is evident that the representation against the order dated 17.3.2021 passed by the Superintendent Engineer was dispatched by the petitioner through the registered post on 12.4.2021 i.e. within a period of 30 days. The Chief Engineer PWD, Bilaspur was not adjudicating a civil or arbitration dispute where the law of limitation applies in its full force rather it was an appeal preferred against the order passed by an authority i.e. Superintendent Engineer and the appeal was preferred before the expiry of 30 days though it was received by the office of Chief Engineer, Bilaspur on 18.5.2021 but the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delayed delivery of the post. 6. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 3.6.2021 is hereby quashed. The authority concerned is directed to consider the appeal/representation made by the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a 5 copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi