1 2025:CGHC:22357-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2670 of 2025 M/s Suvarnadeep Infra Private Limited A Registered Company Under The Companies Act Through Its Authorized Representative Gottipati Venkata Subramanya Sairam Aged About 42 Years, S/o Gottipati Veera Venkata Koteswara Rao R/o 103, Amudalapalli Post Amudalapalli, Krishna Andhra Pradesh 521324, Presently Residing At RES Colony, Bijapur District Bijapur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Public Health Engineering Department (Phed), Mantralaya Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur Zone, Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department Jagdalpur Circle, Jagdalpur District - Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Excecutive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission Public Health Engineering Division Bijapur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate through VC For Respondents/State : Mr. Prafull N Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 27.5.2025 BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP 2 1. Heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through VC and Mr. Prafull N Bharat, learned Advocate General with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayer: 10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned NIT No 15 dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) as the same has been issued without terminating the work of the petitioner. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner company to carry out the balance work to tune of 26.45% within the period of one month. 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner is a registered company registered under the Companies Act. The respondent authorities floated NIT No.11 dated 01.4.2021 for carrying out the “Pipeline work 63mm & 75 MM Dia 2000 mtr. HDPE Pipe & Providing 42 Nos. household connection at Village Tarlaguda, Block Bhopalpatnam. The aforesaid work was allotted to the petitioner company for a cost of Rs.31.80 lacs vide letter of acceptance dated 13.7.2021 and agreement was also entered into between the parties. First payment to the tune of Rs.5,38,233/- was released in favour of the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company could not complete the work on time, therefore, an application was moved for extension of 3 time and it was allowed. Further, the petitioner Company completed the work to the tune of Rs.21,10,000/-, but no measurement was recorded. The petitioner Company completed work to the tune of Rs.26,48,233/- out of total value of work of Rs.36,00,714/- and against said sum, only Rs.5,38,233/- has been paid. The extend of remaining work is 26.45% only. It is further pleaded that the respondent authorities floated fresh tender for the same work bearing NIT No.15 dated 15.5.2025 without terminating the tender allotted to the petitioner Company. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that NIT No.15 dated 15.5.2025 has been floated by the respondent authorities without terminating the work of the petitioner company; the petitioner approached the authorities on 19.5.2025 apprising about the impugned NIT and also requested to cancel it, but no heed has been paid. He would further submit that the petitioner has completed about 80% of the contract work, therefore, action of the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement. He would pray to quash the impugned NIT No.15 dated 15.5.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General would submit that the petitioner has concealed the material fact that prior to issuance of NIT No.15 dated 15.5.2025, the work order issued in favour of the petitioner Company was cancelled/terminated vide Order dated 11.3.2025. Learned Advocate General has placed a copy of the Order dated 11.3.2025 during the course of argument and the same is taken on record, to which, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order was not served upon the petitioner at any point of time 4 and State be called upon to file an affidavit explaining as to on which mode the said order has been served upon the petitioner. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the work order issued in favour of the petitioner Company for the tender in question has already been cancelled vide Order dated 11.3.2025 as the petitioner could not complete the work within the contract period and the petitioner has not challenged the said order in the present petition, in our view, no case is made out for any interference. 7. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner Company would be at liberty to take recourse to law, if aggrieved by the order dated 11.3.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) (Judge) Chief Justice Bini