1 2025:CGHC:45799 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4730 of 2025 M/s Nitesh Raicha A- Class Electrical Contractor And Consultant, Through Its Proprietor Nitesh Raicha S/o Vijay Raicha, Aged About 43 Years, Flat No Rs/504, City Heart Residency Kailashpuri, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Mineral Resource, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Distt. South Bastar- Dantewada (C.G.) 3 - The Zila Nirman Samiti Through Its President Additional Collector Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 4 - The Executive Engineer (O And M) C.S.P.D.C.L., Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate For the State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mayank Choudhary, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 09.09.2025 VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.09.10 18:09:27 +0530 2 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. 2. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “i That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the remaining/withheld amount of Rs.24,09,063/- with interest of 12% per annum in favour of the petitioner. ii. That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the instant writ petition is not preferred against any particular order, but the same is being preferred against the illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of respondent authorities, whereby they have not released the remaining bill amount submitted by the petitioner towards for "Electrification of 81 No Pump Connection of Anicut Various Villages Under (O&M) Division Dantewada" which is duly proved by the Executive Engineer (O&M), C.S.P.D.C.L., Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.). She further contended that the petitioner has filed the application/representation on 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) before the Collector/President, Zila Nirman Samiti, District Dantewada (C.G.) which is still pending, therefore, it is prayed that respondent No.3 may be directed to decide the Annexure P-3 dated 10.06.2025 at the earliest. 3 4. Learned State counsel contended that as limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the concerned respondent authority is ready to decide the representation made by the petitioner Annexure P-3 dated 10.06.2025 in accordance with law, if already not decided. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case and submission made by counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of directing to respondent No.2-Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada & respondent No.3 – Zila Nirman Samiti, through its President to consider and decide Annexure P- 3 dated 10.06.2025 filed by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within an outer limit of ‘90 day’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with rules, regulations and law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant