1 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 2025:CGHC:26570-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3110 of 2025 M/s Svc Projects Private Limited, A Registered Private Limited Company, Through Its Authorized Signatory Jiwendra Singh, S/o Chanradeo Singh, Aged About, 67 Years, R/o Plot No. 882/1 K, Ward No. 31, Parshuram Nagar, Dadar Khurd, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Through Its General Manager (E & M) Bilaspur H.O.D. S.E.C.L. Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - General Manager (E & M) S.E.C.L., Gavera Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Dy. Manager (E & M) Gavera Project, Gavera Area, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Staff Officer (E & M) Gavera Area S.E.C.L., District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.06.24 10:35:08 +0530 2 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/ SECL : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/ SECL. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority, to release the withheld amount to the tune or Rs. 4,34,34,314.74/- deducted from the running bills of the petitioner company on account of Preliminary Acceptance (PAC) and Final Acceptance (FAC), in the interest of justice. 10.2. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. (i) The petitioner company has preferred this petition challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities who have illegally withheld, the amount to the tune of Rs 4,34,34,314.74/- 3 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 deducted by the authorities on account of Primary Acceptance and Retention Money from the running bills as per the terms and condition of the contract. The petitioner company was awarded with the work of Design, Engineering, Construction, Fabrication, Supply, erection, Trial Run and Commissioning of 2X100 MVA, 220 KV/33 KV Substation on Turnkey basis including maintenance for 04 years during the defect liability period at Gavera Area, District Korba, SECL, and the agreement with regard to the same was executed on 08th September, 2020 for Rs. 34,32,14,199.380/- inclusive of 18% GST. The petitioner company has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,71,61,000/- towards the performance security deposit hereinafter referred to as 'PSD') which is 5% of the Contract Value in the form of Bank Guarantee vide letter dated 16.06.2020. (ii) As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the respondent authorities has deducted an amount to the tune of 5% from the Running Bills as Retention Money (2nd part of the Security Deposit) to make the total security as 10% of contract value, as per the terms and condition of the tender/contract. The schedule time for the completion of the contract was 2000 days from the date of the commencement which is divided into sub parts ie. (540 days for the construction, trial run and commissioning of the substation and 1460 days for the maintenance of sub-station during the defect liability period). It is 4 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 further submitted that, vide letter dated 27.05.2020, the construction work was started and the same was completed within the stipulated time frame i.e. by 21.05.2022. As per the scope of work provided under Clause 2.1.1.1 which is the preamble of the work provides for the construction of 220/33 Kv Substation on turnkey basis at Gavera OCP for supplying power at 33KV to the quarry substation and other load center. (iii) As per the scope of the work, it was categorically provided the substation will receive the power through two numbers of the 220 KV Overhead Transmission lines from CSPTCL, and drawing of 220 Kv Overhead lines, provision of wave trap, coupling capacitor, 48 v Batteries, and 220 Kv meter is not included in the scope of work. Means thereby, as per the agreed contractual terms and the scope of work outlined therein, it was explicitly stated and mutually acknowledged that the substation will receive electrical power through two numbers of 220 kV Overhead Transmission Lines, which will be provided by Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (CSPTCL), and once the work of construction and other which was mentioned in the scope of work, stands completed, the contractor will be discharged from his scope of the work, irrespective of the fact, whether the power is received or not in these two substations, and by no means, the contractor can be held liable for the delay in the supply of the power through these 5 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 two 200Kvs overhead transmission lines. In the present case, in hand, based on the scope of the work, the petitioner company has completed entire work, and has successfully carried out the tests of the equipment's installed based on the specifications of the contract work, and the entire payment due against the running bills has been paid by the respondent authorities, from time to time inclusive of the payment of final bill, which itself endorses a submission on behalf of the petitioner company, that, the work has been satisfactorily carried out. The dispute in the present lis revolves around the non-release of an amount to the tune of Rs 4,34,34,314.74/- (Rupees Four Crores Thirty Four Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen Only) deducted by the authorities on account of Primary Acceptance and Final acceptance from the running bills as per the terms and condition of the contract, which the authorities withholding illegally without any authority of law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has successfully completed his scope of work and even a completion certificate has also been issued in his favour. He would submit that after completion of the construction, supply and installation work, the necessary tests as required under the agreement was conducted in presence of Staff Officer (E&M) Gavera Area, authorized representative of the petitioner company and the report to that effect was signed on 21/05/2022. According to the 6 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 petitioner, without there being any fault of the petitioner company, the respondent authorities are illegally withholding the amount of Rs.4,34,34,314/- due against PAC & FAC since long in an arbitrary manner and on account of the said inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is facing hefty financial loss. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy as per the conditions of the NIT, approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ petition. 7. There is an arbitration clause No. 42.0 and 42A i.e. settlement of disputes and settlement of disputes through arbitration, respectively, which reads as under :- “42.0 SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES - It is incumbent upon the contractor to avoid litigation and disputes during the course of execution However, if such disputes take place between the contractor and the department, effort shall be made first to settle the disputes at the company level. The contractor should make request in writing to the Engineer-in-charge for settlement of such disputes/ 7 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 claims within 30 (thirty) days of arising of the cause of dispute/ claim failing which no disputes/claims of the contractor shall be entertained by the company. Effort shall be made to resolve the dispute in two stages In first stage dispute shall be referred to Area GM or GM/HoD(E&M). If difference still persist the dispute shall be referred to a committee constituted by the owner. The committee shall have one member of the rank of Director of the company who shall be chairman of the committee. If differences still persist, the settlement of the dispute shall be resolved in the following manner Disputes relating to the commercial contracts with Central Public Sector Enterprises / Govt. Departments (except Railways, Income Tax, Customs & Excise)/ State Public Sector Enterprises shall be referred by either party for Arbitration to the PMA (Permanent Machinery of Arbitration) in the department of Public Enterprises. in case of parties other than Govt. Agencies, the redressal of the dispute may be sought through Arbitration (THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 as amended by AMENDMENT ACT of 2015). 42A SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES THROUGH ARBITRATION - If the parties fail to resolve the disputes/differences by in house mechanism, then, depending position of the case, either the employer/owner or the contractor shall give notice to other party to refer the matter to arbitration instead of directly approaching Court. The contractor shall, however, be entitled to invoke 8 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 arbitration clause only after exhausting the remedy available under the clause 42. in case of parties other than Govt. Agencies, the redressal of disputes/differences shall be sought through Sole Arbitration as under. Sole Arbitration: In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under these terms & conditions or any condition contained in this contract or interpretation of the terms of, or in connection with this Contract (except as to any matter the decision of which is specially provided for by these conditions the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person, appointed to be the arbitrator by the Competent Authority of CIL/CMD of Subsidiary Company (as the case may be). The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties of this Contract. (a) in the event of the Arbitrator dying, neglecting or refusing to act of resigning or being unable to an for any reason his/her award being set aside by the court for any season, it shall be lawful for Competent Authority of CIL/ CMD of Subsidiary Company (as the case may be to appoint another arbitrator in place of the outgoing arbitrator in the manner aforesaid. (b) It is further a term of this contract that no person other than the person appointed by the Competent Authority of CIL/CMD of Subsidiary Company (as the case may be) as aforesaid should act as arbitrator and that, if for any reason that is not possible, the matter is not to be referred to Arbitration at all. 9 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 Subject as aforesaid, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended by Amendment Act of 2015, and the rules thereunder and any statutory modification thereof for the time being in force shall be deemed to apply to the Arbitration proceedings under this clause. The venue of arbitration shall be the place from which the contract is issued or such other place as the Competent Authority of CIL/ CMD of Subsidiary Company (as the case may be) at his discretion may determine. Applicable Law, The contracts shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Union of India. Contracts with Partnership firm/Joint Venture/Consortium: The Partnership firm/Joint Venture/Consortium is required to submit written consent of all the partners to above arbitration clause at the time of submission of bid. 8. From perusal of the above arbitration clause, it appears that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available under the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the arbitration clause of the agreement executed between the parties, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be 10 WPC No. 3110 of 2025 and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies available to him under the law, if so advised. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Amardeep