1 2025:CGHC:40753-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4316 of 2025 Suresh Chandrakar Sole Proprietor of The Proprietorship Firm M/s Suresh Chandrakar, Aged About 42 Years, S/o Shri Jagannath Chandrakar, Through Its Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Karan Chandrakar S/o Shri Jagannath Chandrakar Aged About 22 Years, R/o Rautpara, Bijapur, District Bijapur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur C.G. 2 - Executive Engineer P W D Bastar Division, Bijapur Office of The Executive Engineer P W D West Bastar Division, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintending Engineer P W D Bastar Division, Bijapur Office of The Executive Engineer P W D West Bastar Division, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Engineer P W D West Bastar Division, Bijapur Office of The Executive Engineer P W D West Bastar Division, Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Union of India Through Under Secretary Ministry of Road Transport And Highways Transport Bhawan, 1 Parliament Street New Delhi- 110001. 6 - M/s Shiv Shakti Engineering Works A Class Contractor, Main Road Bijapur, District- Bijapur C.G. Mobile No. 8770745757. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Mishra as well as Mr. Siddharth Dubey, Advocates For Respondent-State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent-Union of India : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.13 18:25:51 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.08 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Mishra as well as Mr. Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State as well as Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1) That the Hon'ble Court may call the entire record of the present matter. 10.2) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure "P/1A". Annexure "P/1B" and Annexure "P/IC". 10.3) Directing the concerned answering respondent(s) to allot the remaining work of the subject contract to the petitioner with a fixed time line for its completion subject to force majeure. 10.4) Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble 3 Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.5) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.” 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was awarded the work for construction of bridge and culvert on the Nelasnar–Fodoly–Mirtur–Gangaloor Road under the L.W.E. Project in District Bijapur, Chhattisgarh, for a contract value of ₹3,86,68,380/-, with the stipulated time for completion duly prescribed in the agreement. The petitioner successfully executed the substantial portion of the project, and as on 8 August 2024, work worth approximately ₹51.16 crore stood completed, leaving only a meagre balance work valued at about ₹2.58 crore. It is submitted that the contract period was extended from time to time, the last such extension being valid up to 31st March 2025. However, during this extended period, the petitioner faced certain unforeseen circumstances, including his arrest on 6th January 2025 in connection with a criminal case, which hindered his personal supervision of the project. Despite the said extensions and substantial completion of the work, a show cause notice dated 31st December 2024 was issued, alleging non-execution of work for the preceding eight months. Without properly considering the petitioner’s explanation and the factual position on site, the contract was abruptly terminated on 6th January 2025, solely on the allegation of stoppage of work. Thereafter, the respondents 4 proceeded to forfeit the security deposit and impose 10% penalty amounting to approximately ₹37 lakh, invoking Clause 2 of the contract. 4. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the impugned termination, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty are arbitrary, disproportionate, and in breach of the principles of natural justice, particularly when the major portion of the work had already been completed and the remaining work was of negligible quantum. It is also urged that the subsequent award of the remaining work to a private respondent on 18th June 2025 has not led to any actual progress, as the work has not commenced till date due to the rainy season. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s registration as an “A” Class contractor expired on 31st March 2025 and an application for its renewal has already been made. The petitioner, being ready and willing to execute the balance work, had even addressed communications to the authorities seeking permission to complete the same. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays that the impugned termination, penalty, and forfeiture be quashed, and he be permitted to complete the balance work in the interest of public exchequer and timely completion of the project. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as well as learned Deputy Solicitor General, jointly submit that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the specific remedy available to the 5 petitioner under Clause 28 of the agreement executed between the parties. It is urged that Clause 28 of the contract expressly provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration proceedings before the competent authority designated therein, and therefore, any grievance regarding termination of the contract, forfeiture of security deposit, or imposition of penalty must be adjudicated in accordance with the said contractual mechanism. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the disputes raised by the petitioner, touching upon the validity of the termination order, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty, arise directly out of the contractual terms between the parties. Clause 28 of the agreement provides a specific mechanism for resolution of such disputes by way of arbitration before the competent authority. 8. In view of the settled position of law that where an efficacious alternative remedy is available and the parties are bound by the terms of their contract, the writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised to adjudicate contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present petition. 6 9. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Clause 28 of the agreement, which provides arbitration proceedings. However, the petitioner is also at liberty to take recourse to law, if occasion arises. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu