1 2025:CGHC:39412-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4218 of 2025 M/s B.R. Singh Bhadouria Through Its Proprietor Shrikumar Singh S/o Late B.R. Singh Bhadouria Aged About 72 Years, R/o Thakur Para, Nakulnagar, Dakshin Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Bridge Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Bridge Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Bridge Division, Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Bridge Division, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General with Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.08 18:44:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.08.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Superintendent Engineer & order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Chief Engineer is arbitrary, perverse and passed without following natural justice. ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated- 24.04.2025 & 07.11.2023 (P/1 & P/2 respectively) passed by the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department. iii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal by giving reasoned and speaking order. iv. Pass such other or further writ, order, or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. At the very outset, learned Advocate General for the State/respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present petition against the impugned order passed by the authorities and stated that as per the arbitration clause 1.17, the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and further against the said order, remedy lies with 3 the Chhattisgarh/Madhyasthan Adhikaran Raipur. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the impugned order is a non-speaking order, hence, there would not be fruitful purpose for approaching the arbitration Tribunal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote arbitration clause of the tender document. It reads thus : Arbitration Clause 1.17: Except as otherwise provided in this contract all question and dispute, relating to the meaning of the specifications designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to thing whatsoever, in any way, arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the works or after the completion abandonment thereof shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer shall give his written instructions and/or decisions within a period of 60 days of such request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Upon receipt of written instructions of decisions, the 4 parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such instruction or decision, If the superintending Engineer fails to give his instructions or decisions in writing with in a period of 60 days or mutually agreed time after being requested or if the parties may within 60 days refer and appeal to the Chief Engineer who shall afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Chief Engineer will give his decision within 90 days. If any party is not satisfied with the decision of the Chief Engineer, he can refer such dispute for arbitration governed as per "The Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur" 6. In view of the arbitration clause (Clause 1.17) embedded in the contract, which provides a comprehensive and statutorily recognized dispute resolution mechanism including an appeal before the Chief Engineer and, thereafter, arbitration before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an effective, adequate, and efficacious alternative remedy available. The mere allegation that the impugned order is a non-speaking one does not, in itself, justify bypassing the agreed contractual and statutory forum, particularly when the dispute pertains to contractual obligations and administrative decisions under a tender process. 5 7. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 9. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 10. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Clause 1.17 of the contract before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur, in accordance with law. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Amardeep