1 2025:CGHC:31480-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3501 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o P.L. Mittal, aged about 59 years, Occupation - ‘A’ Class Contractor R/o Main Road Korba P.S. and Tehsil Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department Naya Raipur, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Jagdalpur District Bastar Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Civil Lines District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by 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, C.J. 09.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal and Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to take necessary action on the application dated 31/01/2025 (Annexure P-10) submitted by the petitioner. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the letter dated 15/01/2025 passed by the Respondent No.3/Executive Engineer. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the recovery notice dated 24/06/2025 issued by the respondent executive engineer which is without sum and substance. (ANNEXURE P-2). 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the letter dated 01/05/2025 and the degradation of license of the petitioner may not be given effect. 10.5 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly pleased to direct the respondent authorities to direct the petitioner to continue his work related to tender no. 66893. 10.6 That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case” 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per 1.17 – Arbitration Clause, the petitioner has already moved an 3 application before the authority concerned on 31.01.2025, but the said application has not been decided yet. 4. Learned Advocate General, on the other hand, has opposed the application, which has been moved before the competent authority by the petitioner on 31.01.2025, whereby he has drawn attention of the Court towards the prayer made in the said application, which goes to show that the petitioner wants further time to complete the work and it is stated that the said prayer cannot be considered by the authority in view of 1.17 - Arbitration Clause. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application in pursuance of 1.17 – Arbitration Clause within a period of one week from today and the authority concern shall decide the same within a period of two weeks thereafter and for a period of three weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in pursuance of the recovery. If the petitioner fails to make any such application, the authorities are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observation and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra