1 / 5 2025:CGHC:4958 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4982 of 2024 1 - M/s Abhinav Constructions Through Its Partner Abhinav Soni S/o Shyam Sundar Soni, Aged 35 Years, House No. 206 Power Heights Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. 495677 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Municipal Corporation, Korba Through Its Commissioner, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Harpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. S. S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. R. S. Marhas, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities who is not releasing the undisputed amount of Rs.46,51,162/- withheld by the authorities towards the work done as awarded to the petitioner. 2 / 5 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Municipal Corporation, Korba has awarded a work of repairing and maintenance of tar road and CC road under the Darri Barrage to Gopalpur vide LOA dated 25/11/2019 (Annexure P/2) and the time period for completion of the work was 45 days and the same has already been completed by the petitioner within the stipulated time. Since the final bill was raised on 10/07/2020 and the amount has been certified by the Municipal Corporation, no payment has been made towards the work done by the petitioner. He would further place reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Utkal Highways Engineers & Contractors vs. Chief General Manager & Ors.1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Municipal Corporation by referring his reply to the writ petition, submits that the claim of the petitioner is suffers from delay and laches, as the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for releasing the amount towards the work after the limitation period of 3 years from the date of completion of the work, the petition itself is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of filing civil suit before the appropriate forum. He would further place reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble 1 SLP(C) No.14350/2022 (decided on 8-1-2025) 3 / 5 Supreme Court in the matter of Director of Agriculture & Ors. vs. M. V. Ramachandran2 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of filing writ petition claiming amount under bills and invoices. He would further referred the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India & Ors.3 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “the filing of the writ petition after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a suit is unreasonable.” 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by the parties as also the documents. 5. From perusal of the pleadings and after hearing the contention raised by the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed the work on 31/01/2020 as awarded to the petitioner on 25/11/2019 and the petitioner has raised the bill on 10/07/2020, the petitioner has also placed a document which shows that the amount claimed by the petitioner has been certified by the Office of the Municipal Corporation which has not been denied by the respondent/Corporation. 6. The objection of the Corporation that the filing of the writ petition after the period of limitation i.e. 3 years from the date of work completion is absolutely incorrect as the petitioner has raised the final bill on 10/07/2020 and the Officer of the Corporation has certified the amount on the same day ie. 10/07/2020. 2 SLP (C) No.18371/2021 (decided on 17-3-2023) 3 (1984) 3 SCC 362 4 / 5 7. In the matter of M/s Utkal Highways Engineers & Contractors (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “8. Be that as it may, the High Court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie. Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there are disputed. questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated. upon without recording formal evidence.” 8. As far as the judgment relied by the respondent/Corporation upon the decision rendered in the matter of Director of Agriculture & Ors. (supra) the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the present case as in that case, the writ petition was filed after the dismissal of the civil suit on default. 9. As far as the judgment of Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same is also completely not debarred the petitioner to file a writ petition as in the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “There may also be cases where there may be circumstances which may persuade the Court to grant relief even though the petition may have been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed for a suit. Each case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances touching the conduct of the parties.” 5 / 5 10. In the present case, the petitioner has approached the Corporation by raising the bill immediately after completion of the work and the bill of the work has also been certified by the Corporation which was well within the knowledge of the Corporation. 11. In view of the settled position of law and the fact narrated above, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Korba is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass necessary order in accordance with law and if the amount claimed by the petitioner is not in dispute, take necessary steps for releasing the amount withheld by the concerned authority within the period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar