1 / 5 2025:CGHC:35312-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3841 of 2025 Neelam Security Service Having Office At Naya Para, Kirti Nagar, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Sole Proprietor Sh. Nilesh Dwivedi, S/o Sh. Sampat Prasad Dwivedi, Aged About 30 Years, Having Office At, Naya Para, Kirti Nagar, Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Housing Board Represented Through Its Commissioner, Having Office At Paryawas Bhawan, Sector- 19, North Block, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Additional Commissioner Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 3 - Deputy Housing Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.24 10:53:11 +0530 2 / 5 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/07/2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is praying for the following reliefs :- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the fresh Copy of the Notice Inviting Tender vide advertisement no. 20 issued by the Respondents; 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. (i) Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is a Class-D contractor with the unified registration system in the state of Chhattisgarh and is basically engaged in work of construction for various government departments. The Respondents had issued a Notice Inviting Tender for the work of Construction of Godown cum Shop, office Room and Toilet for C.G. Government Cooperative Department at Hinchhapur, Rambod, Saket, Ghuma, total 4 Units, Block Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. The Petitioner had also participated in the 3 / 5 tender process by submitting its bid and was declared successful bidder and work order was issued in favour of the Petitioner and agreement was also executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4. (ii) Since the inception of the work, despite repeated requests of the Petitioner, the Respondents have failed to timely release the payment as a result of which the progress of work got delayed. However, without considering the representations of the Petitioner, the Respondent illegally terminated the Contract on 06.02.2024. Thereafter, upon the representations made by the Petitioner, the contract was revived by the Respondents and a period of 3 months was granted for execution of work, however, again the payment to the Petitioner for execution of work was not released. Thereafter, the Petitioner again sought for extension of time to execute the work, however, no extension was granted to the Petitioner. On the contrary, to the utter surprise of the Petitioner, the contract was again terminated by the Respondent. Further the petitioner being aggrieved from termination and non- release of the dues invokes the dispute redressal mechanism by referring the disputes to the Respondent No. 3, which was rejected vide letter dated 23.06.2025. (iii) The Petitioner being aggrieved therefrom, had filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 2 on 09.07.2025 and the same is pending consideration. In the meantime, the Respondent No. 4 had invited fresh bids for the execution of the balance work vide Advertisement No. 20. Being aggrieved from the issuance of fresh 4 / 5 NIT for the balance work, as the same would result in frustration of the claims of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the agreement of the petitioner has been terminated vide letter dated 20/02/2025 passed by respondent No.4 against which the petitioner raised his claim before the respondent No.3 on 04/04/2025 pursuance to the arbitration clause 1.21. Further it is stated that his claim was also rejected vide letter dated 23/06/2025 and soon after fresh NIT has been issued for the balance work. He further submits that against the rejection of his claim, the petitioner also filed an appeal before the respondent No.2 on 09/07/2025 which is sub-judice. It is further argued that the petitioner has already completed 85% of the work allotted to him and he sought extension of time for completing the remaining work. He further prays for a direction towards the respondent authority to consider and decide the appeal pending before the authority, in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appeal is pending before the concerned authority/ respondent No.2, the same shall be decided, in accordance with law, within the stipulated period. With regard to the completion of the work is concerned, the respondent counsel submits that only 45% of the work has been done by the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5 / 5 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the grievance of the petitioner and particularly considering the fact that the appeal of the petitioner is still pending before the respondent No.2/ the Additional Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G., the respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal dated 09/07/2025 (Annexure P/12) moved by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that till the decision of the said pending appeal before the respondent No.2, the fresh NIT be kept in abeyance. 9. With the aforesaid direction/ observation, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice $. Bhilwar/Jyoti