1 2025:CGHC:42632-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4512 of 2025 1 - M/s R.K. Enterprises A Proprietorship Through Its Power Of Attorney Mr. R.K. Roy S/o Late H.L. Ray, Aged About 62 Years, For Proprietor Mrs. Vandana Roy W/o Shri R.K. Roy Office Address Vandaniya Vv-46, Parthivi Province Integrated Township, Province Sarona, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation ( A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking ) Through- Its Managing Director, First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road, No. 1 Telibandha, Raipur District- Raipur ( C.G. ). 2 - The Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur District- Raipur ( C.G. ). SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.23 11:34:19 +0530 2 3 - The Regional Project Director National Highways Authority Of India ( C.G. ). ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 as well as Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the Respondent/State and Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case pertaining to the loan agreement availed by the petitioner. 3 10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned communication dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure P/12). 10.3. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the 20% withheld amount from the final bill amounting Rs. 9,49,000/- and the amount of security deposit amounting Rs. 1876810/- with commercial rate of interest. 10.4. To grant any other relief which the Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The respondent no.1 entered into agreement with the petitioner for execution of contract namely "Providing and Laying of DI Pipe Line for Shifting of existing Pipe Line of CSIDC along the National Highway (NH- 30) at Industrial Area Phase-I and Phase-II Raipur (C.G.)" and work order to this effect was issued on 10.03.2021. According to the Specifications of Items the petitioner executed the work with receipt of five running account bills. The Sixth and final bill was prepared on 03.06.2024 but to the utter surprise the release of final bill amount was only 80% of the final amount and 50% of the security deposit amount which ought to have been released with final bill was also not released. According to the terms of agreement the entire 4 security amount ought to have been released within four months after final bill. Thus an amount of Rs.9,49,320/- which amounts 20% of final bill has been withheld as also an amount of Rs. 18,76,810/- towards security amount have been withheld, hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily withheld the 20% amount from the final bill and have illegally withheld the security deposit of the petitioner. It is further contended that the acts of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary in so far as the respondents are contradicting their own stand as on the one hand they are accepting the design effect and have decided to replace the pipeline with specifications provided in the contract agreement with the pipeline of specifications advised by the expert consultants and on the contrary is alleging the petitioner that the petitioner has not completed the work because testing part falls in the scope of work and the petitioner has not completed the testing part. He further submits that that the respondents have illegally withheld the due amount of the petitioner and are unjustly and unfairly justifying their illegality by shifting the 5 onus upon the petitioner in the garb of testing of pipeline whereas it is manifest that the testing is not possible in the existing circumstances which has arisen due to the fault on the part of respondents. The petitioner is not responsible for the defects in the design nor is petitioner responsible for the flow of drain and sewerage water along with the industrial units water. The petitioner is not responsible for the accumulation of water up to height of one metre in the culvert. He further submits that the petitioner has been illegally and arbitrarily deprived from the due amount of contract therefore the respondents are obligated under law to release the withheld amount and the withheld security deposit with commercial rate of interest on such amount. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and pointed out that arbitration clause exists for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner and without taking recourse to the same, approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with 6 the writ petition. 7. There is an arbitration clause No. 28, which reads as under :- “Arbitration Clause : Clause 28 - Except as otherwise provided in this contract all question and dispute relating to the meaning of the specification designs, drawings and instruction herein before mentioned as to thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract designs, drawings, specifications, estimate, concerning the works, or the execution of failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work or a after the abandonment there of shall be referred to the E.D./M.D. for his decision, within a period 30 (thirty) days of such an occurrence(s) thereupon the E.D./M.D. shall give his written instructions and/or decisions, after hearing the contractor and Executive Engineer within a period of 15 (fifteen) days of such request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of parties. Upon receipt of written instructions or decisions of Executive Engineer, the parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such instructions or decisions. If the Executive Engineer fails to give his instruction or decisions in writing within a period of 15 (fifteen) days or mutually agreed time after being requested and /or, 7 if the party(es) is/or aggrieved against the decision of the Executive Engineer, the aggrieved party may within 30 days prefer an appeal to the E.D/M.D. who shall afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Managing Director will give his decision within 30 (thirty) days or such mutually agreed period. If any party is not satisfied with the decision of the Managing Director he can file the petition for resolving the dispute through arbitration in the arbitration tribunal. A reference to arbitration tribunal shall be no ground for not continuing the work on the part of the Contractor. Payment as per original terms and conditions of the agreement shall be continued by the Executive Engineer in accordance with clause – 8 above. 8. From perusal of the above arbitration clause, it appears that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available under the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the arbitration clause of the agreement executed between the parties, so we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 8 10. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies available to him under the law, if so wishes. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Shoaib