1 2025:CGHC:28886-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3264 of 2025 M/s Shrey Corporation Through Managing Partner- Pranjal Agrawal, S/o Dr. P.D. Agrawal, Aged About 48 Years, Chhajugali, Behind Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Health And Family Welfare Department Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattis- garh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattis- garh. 4 - The Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30 .06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General along ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.06.30 16:18:10 +0530 2 with Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 May, this Hon’ble Court kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the termination of services letter dated 23/05/2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent no.3, being arbitrary, illegal and issued with mala fine intention to evade payment obligations. 10.2 May, this Hon'ble Court kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to release the undisputed and admitted payment of the petitioner from June 2024 to till date with suitable interest. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit.” 3. Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 issued the tender for Mobile Medical Unit Service Provider Authority (MMUSPA) bearing E-procurement tender No.70043 dated 15.12.2020, in which the petitioner along with other candidates have participated in the aforesaid tender. After due completion of the aforesaid tender process, the tender of petitioner has been approved and by work order dated 05.03.2021 the petitioner has commenced the work and in compliance of work order dated 05.03.2021, an agreement by the competent authority and the petitioner was executed between them for maintain and operate 3 medical mobile units to provide primary and selected secondary health care which is for the period of 60 months from the date of execution of agreement. In consonance of the said agreement the petitioner maintained and operated four medical mobile units for providing primary and secondary health care without any violation of terms of agreement at Block Kharsiya, Block Lailunga, Block Gharghoda and Block Udaipur (Dharamjaigarh). 4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the agreement dated 08.03.2021, the petitioner's work of maintained and operated medical mobile units, the respondent authority has paid the dues of the petitioner till 05.06.20234 which is paid by the respondent No.5 after due approval of the competent authority. But the respondent authority after June 2024, stop the monthly payment in favour of petitioner without any rhymes and reason, therefore the petitioner submitted the request letter dated 09.01.2025 for releasing the undisputed dues in favour of petitioner which is kept since June 2024 and when the petitioner made a request letter for releasing of his dues, the respondent authority with malafide intention and without cogent reason, taking the shelter of clause 5.1 issued the termination letter on 23.05.2025. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General assisted by learned Deputy Advocate General submits that there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator for redressal of his grievance as per Clause-14 of the Agreement. 4 6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with a liberty to take recourse to Clause-14 of the Agreement, which provides for arbitration proceedings for redressal of its dispute. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law, if occasion arises. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu