1 2025:CGHC:31860-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3533 of 2025 M/s Abhinandan Kedia S/o Shri Om Prakash Kedia Aged About 39 Years Partnership Firm Through Its Partner Abhinandan Kedia S/o Shri Om Prakash Kedia Aged About 39 Years Near Railway Station Ward No.9 Baradwar District Sakti Chhattisgarh 495687 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer-in-Chief Public Works Department Nirman Bhawan North Block Sector-19 Atal Nagar Nawa, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3. Chief Engineer Public Works Department Bridge Zone Raipur C.G. 4. Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department Bridge Circle Raigarh C.G. 5. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Bridge Construction Division Bilaspur C.G. 6. Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Bridge Construction Sub Division Janjgir C.G. ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.10 18:33:32 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. S.S. Baghel, 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 10.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the subject matter of the instant writ petition and the impugned Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.06.2025. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction for setting aside e- procurement tender notice for “Construction of H.L. Bridge i/c Approach Road Across Borai River on Dhanuharpara (Salni)-Nawagaon Road (Balance Work)” bearing NIT No. 215/TC/25-26 and system Tender No. 170742 dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P/1). Resultantly, the petitioner may kindly be allowed to 3 complete the balance work pertaining to the subject work as per the terms and conditions of the contract awarded to it vide agreement No. 17/DL/2023-24 executed between the petitioner and the respondent state through its authorities. 10.3 That, the suitable writ/order/direction may kindly be issued directing respondent authorities not to proceed further in pursuance of NIT dated 24.06.2025 till the issue regarding illegal termination is finally adjudicated in fair and just manner. 10.4 That, any other further order(s) as deemed fit and necessary by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a partnership firm and is represented through its partner. The petitioner firm being a contractor registered as ‘A-Class’ contractor under unified Registration System is eligible to participate in various tenders issued by the respondent authorities. He further submits that the respondent department issued e-procurement Tender Notice having 154/TC/23-24 dated 15.06.2023, calling upon the eligible entities for execution of the work of “Construction of High Level. Bridge and Approach Raod Across Borai River on Dhanuharpara (Salni)- Nawagaon Road”. The petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender process on ‘Percentage Rate Basis’ and its tender was accepted @ 13.40% below SOR. In pursuance of the same an agreement was executed by the respondent department through respondent No. 5, i.e. Agreement No. 17/D.L./2023-24. 4. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after execution of the agreement for the subject work, work-order was 4 also issued vide letter dated 29.09.2023, for execution of the work to the petitioner firm. In pursuance of the same the petitioner bonafidely started execution of the work so that the same could be completed with the time period allowed for completion of the same and submitted the drawing and necessary document for approval. Despite, repeated request to supply the same, so that construction can be started the same was supplied on 12.12.2023. Thereafter, on 12.04.2024 inspection was done by the respondent No. 4 in the presence of the respondents No. 5 and 6 and the petitioner. He also contended that on inspection it was decided to submit modified plan by increasing the length of the road after conducting survey. Despite the same, the modified plan was not provided to the petitioner till date, so that the work can further be proceeded. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner wrote a letter dated 18.06.2024 to the respondent No. 5 for removal of High Tension Line and finalizing the proceeding for acquisition of land for construction of the approach, but no decision has been taken to sort out the aforesaid hindrance so that work can be proceeded swiftly. Contrary to the circular dated 08.07.2023 of the respondent department, instead of taking interest in removing the hindrances, the respondent No. 6 issued a letter dated 30.08.2024, stating that there is no progress of work in rainy season and it appears that the work will not be completed in the time period allowed for completion of same. He further submits that the said letter was issued by the respondent authorities just to cover up their own shortcoming with an intention to somehow terminate the contract and thereafter, award the same to their favourable tenderer. He also submits that in one other similar contract of the same nature bearing agreement 5 No. 17/D.L./2021-22, the petitioner was directed to stop the construction work and remove the staging installed for casting during the rainy season vide letter dated 05.07.2023 and was also informed the same being contrary to the circular dated 08.07.2023 issued by the respondent authorities. In the said contract also the time period allowed for completion of the same was including rainy season. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the hindrances was not removed timely and even the approved drawing was not provided in time, as such, the petitioner found that there is no possibility to complete the work within the stipulated time, as such, the petitioner made a request vide letter dated 01.10.2024 to the respondent authorities for extension of time from 28.10.2024 to 15.06.2025 in which no steps was taken. Thereafter, the request to forward the application for extension of time was repeatedly made to the respondent No. 6 and also in whatsapp, but it appears that no heed was paid on the same. Subsequently, again vide letter dated 11.11.2024 request was made for extension of time as per clause 1.13.1 of the contract, but this time also the same was not acted upon by the respondent authorities thereby granting extension of time. He further contended that instead of removing hindrances and forwarding the application for taking decision on the request for extension of time the respondent No. 6 vide its letter dated 16.12.2024 straight away recommended for termination of contract. Thereafter, merely on the recommendation of the SDO vide its letter dated 16.12.2024, without verifying the actual facts, the respondent No. 5, issued show-cause notice for termination of contract under clause 1.14 of the agreement/contract. 6 Thereafter, the inspection was conducted on 08.02.2025 and it was directed by the Superintending Engineer vide letter/inspection report dated 19.02.2025 to Executive Engineer to issue show-cause notice and at the same time on the contrary, to submit the proposal for extension of time with penalty. Despite, direction of the respondent No. 4 no steps were taken to issue fresh show-cause notice or to submit the proposal for extension of time with penalty, the Executive Engineer straight away terminated the contract agreement vide its order dated 26.03.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that being aggrieved by the termination of agreement the petitioner immediately made representation dated 02.04.2025 to the Superintending Engineer apprising the higher authority regarding unilateral and ex-parte termination of contract and to grant proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing. When no heed was paid on the same, the petitioner submitted representation/appeal dated 20.04.2025 under clause 1.17 of the contract agreement. The petitioner had also submitted his written submission for the hearing dated 07.05.2025, thereafter, the respondent No. 4 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner vide its order dated 09.05.2025 communicated vide letter dated 14.05.2025. He would submit that being aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the respondent No. 4, the petitioner preferred an appeal under clause 1.17 before the respondent No. 3 on 09.06.2025 which is pending consideration and the petitioner is hopeful of succeeding in the same if the submissions made, documents submitted and the circumstances for delay is meticulously examined by the respondent No. 3. He further submits that the delay in subject work is not only because of various reasons as mentioned in the appeal and 7 submissions before the authorities, but also on account of delayed payment of dues with respect to other tenders resulting in financial constraints and also because of scarcity of labourers as they are engaged in construction of house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas yojna. During the pendency of the appeal before the respondent No. 3, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, without waiting for the final outcome of the appeal just in order to prejudice the case and claim of the petitioner, the respondent authorities again issued impugned Notice Inviting Tender dated 24.06.2025 for the same work (Balance work). The petitioner being aggrieved by the issuance of NIT dated 24.06.2025, made a representation before the respondent authorities not to proceed further as the matter is pending consideration and the claim of the petitioner has not been finally settled, but the respondent authorities are proceeding further with the impugned NIT and award the subject work to their favourable tenderer. He further contended that despite various hindrances the petitioner could somehow complete approximately 26 percent of the work wherein the pillars have already been constructed and the staging for concrete slabbing over the pillers were also done to certain extent, but the concrete slabbing could not be done as the extension of time as demanded for completion of work was not given and the contract itself was cancelled. At the cost of repetition, it is submitted that the petitioner firm is willing to complete the work subject to the hindrances being removed and the extension of time is granted restoring the contract. The willingness has also been informed by the petitioner to the respondent authorities, but it appears that the authorities are adamant in proceeding further with the impugned NIT which will result into financial burden to the 8 state exchequer. Despite of the fact that the outcome of the appeal is pending consideration before the respondent No. 3, the respondent authorities in arbitrary manner and in abuse of its power are proceeding with the fresh tender process. Hence, this petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Advocate General vehemently opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, arguing that the petitioner’s appeal before respondent No. 3 is still pending consideration. Given this circumstance, the learned Advocate General submits that the present petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case. 10. It is evident that the petitioner had preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 on 09.06.2025, for redressal of his grievances, which is still pending consideration. 11. In view of the above, respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. For a period of one week, the e-procurement tender notice bearing NIT No. 215/TC/25-26 and System Tender No. 170742 dated 24.06.2025, shall be kept in abeyance. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan