1 2025:CGHC:31826-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3330 of 2025 Pateria Constructions Limited, through its Proprietor Rajendra Kumar Pateria S/o Late G.S. Pateria aged about 55 years, R/o Qr. No. H - 18, Irrigation Colony, Rampur Korba, Thana Rampur, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation Korba Through Commissioner Korba Having Its Registered Officeat Saket Bhavan ITI Chowk, Rampur Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Engineer of Municipal Corporation Korba having its Registered Office at Nagar Palik Nigam, Saket Bhawan, ITI Chowk, Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 1 0 .0 7 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Arjit Tiawri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel, appearing for Municipal Corporation, Korba / respondent No.2 & 3. 2. The present petition has been by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order or suitable direction to the Respondents to make payment of undisputed bills raised by petitioner and duly verified and certified by concerned Municipal Authorities which is pending since long time in a stipulated time frame, in the interest of justice. iii. Any other relief(s) in favor of Petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with respect to non-payment of undisputed amount which is payable to the petitioner from the respondents against the completion of work done by him for strengthening of Gevraghat to Ratakhar by-pass road as well as approach road of Ratakhar bridge of District Korba. Due to such non-payment after lapse of almost more than 4 years, petitioner is suffering from financial hardships. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been awarded work order for strengthening of Gevraghat to Ratakhar by-pass road as well as approach road of Ratakhar 3 bridge of District Korba and pursuant to which the petitioner has successfully completed the entire work in question in the year 2020 itself and after inspection, bills were duly submitted, also quality of work was found to be in consonance to the norms and standards of the terms and conditions mentioned in the contract, but the authority had not made any payment for the executed work. He further submitted that the bills raised against the work order were duly approved by the Municpal Corporation Authorities, who are the competent authority, which is evident from page 31 of the writ petition i.e. part of Annexure P/6 Final Running Account Bill B. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for Municipal Corporation / respondent Nos.2 & 3 submits that previously the amount was entered into between the parties for 263.00 lacs, subsequently, a Committee was constituted headed by the Collector and the amount was increased to 283.00 lacs and it was admitted by the petitioner in his own document that final amount has been received without any protest and the document which the learned counsel for the petitioner is relying has been corrected by the Account Department showing that the sanctioned amount has already been paid to the petitioner, apart from this the security amount has also been paid to the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 4 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact it was admitted by the petitioner in his own document that final amount has been received without any protest and the document which the learned counsel for the petitioner is relying has been corrected by the Account Department showing that the sanctioned amount has already been paid to the petitioner, apart from this, the security amount has also been paid to the petitioner, as such, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra