1 2025:CGHC:38231-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4088 of 2025 M/s Sanjay Singhi Through Its Partner- Sanjay Singhi, S/o Late Dr. Tarachand Singhi, Aged About 61 Years, Having Its Registered Office At A-50, Vardhaman Nagar, Rajnandgaon P.S. Lal Bagh P.O.- Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Durg- Zone, Durg (C.G.) 4. Superintending Engineer Public Works Department, Circle- Durg, Durg (C.G.) 5. Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division- (B And R) Khairagarh (C.G.) Dist- Rajnandgaon (C.G) 6. Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Division- (B And R) Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Dist- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.05 11:31:16 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “A. May, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to set-aside/quash the entire arbitrary, unreasonable, whimsical, and legally untenable proceedings adopted by the respondents, culminating into the final notice and recommendation dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure P/1) forwarded to respondent No. 5, passed by respondent No. 6. B. May, this Hon’ble Court be pleased Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing the respondents to fulfill their statutory and contractual obligations by completing the land acquisition process with respect to the remaining 3 work site of the petitioner for the Diwantola Nawagaon road segment in a strict time-bound manner from the date of this Hon’ble Court’s order, ensuring a clear and unencumbered site for the petitioner to resume work. C. May, this Hon’ble Court, In the alternative to prayer(b), and in the event that the respondents express inability or unwillingness to complete the land acquisition process within the stipulated time, issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing the respondents to finalize the contract of the petitioner bearing Agreement No. 113/2021-22 under non-penal clauses i.e. Clause 14 of the said agreement. D. May, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to command the respondents against taking discriminatory action with respect to the petitioner. E. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience, and to prevent the abuse of the process of law. F. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. The learned Advocate General submits that the impugned order dated 26.06.2025 merely contains a recommendation for cancellation of the agreement and that no final order has been passed for termination of the petitioner’s agreement concerning the incomplete work. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself stopped the work. 4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the three works allotted to the petitioner through tender, two have been completed. The third work remains held up due to certain impediments arising from issues related to land acquisition. He draws the attention of 4 this Court to the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Collector. 5. The learned Advocate General, however, refers to a letter dated 03.05.2025 from the SDO, wherein it is stated that the petitioner’s contention that the work could not be completed due to land acquisition issues is absolutely incorrect. It is claimed that the affected villagers have been assured of receiving compensation for their land. 6. Regarding the petitioner’s reliance on the Collector’s letter dated 30.07.2025, the learned Advocate General submits that the said letter was merely an invitation for objections from the aggrieved persons in connection with the acquisition of land belonging to five individuals. 7. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the statement made at Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner undertakes to complete the work within one month starting from 18.08.2025 and that the Collector shall ensure no obstruction is caused to the petitioner from completing the work, the matter is accordingly disposed off with liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law in case of failure to complete the work within the stipulated time. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan