2025:CGHC:43151-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5911 of 2024 M/s Varsha Constructions A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At Millennium Plaza, Ii, Floor 25-26, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Its Partner Shri Barun Jain, Aged About 39 Years S/o Shri Kamal Chand Jain, R/o Barun Kunj, House No. 736, Opposite Laxmi Narayan Temple, Avanti Vihar, Sector-2 Extension, Telibandha, Raipur - 492001, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, First Floor, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Through The Registrar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The Vice Chancellor Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 5 - The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 6 - The Finance Controller Officer Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Tridib Bhattacharya and Shri Siddharth Dubey, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri SS Baghel, Dy GA For Respondents-2 to 6 : Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.09.01 17:23:11 +0530 Wps 5911 of 2024 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 26.08.2025 Heard Shri Tridib Bhattacharya and Shri Siddharth Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner firm. Also heard Shri SS Baghel, learned Dy GA for the State, and Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for respondents- 2 to 6. 1. Petitioner firm craves for the following reliefs in the petition: “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 21.10.2021 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent no.4 Registrar, order dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P2) and order dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P3) passed by respondent no.5 Executive Engineer of the respondent University, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the appeal afresh filed by the petitioner firm before the respondent Vice Chancellor after affording an opportunity of hearing and to allow adducing of evidence and conducting a site measurement in presence of both the parties by an independent agency to quantify the work done, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to not finalize the fresh tender process with Wps 5911 of 2024 3 tender no.159121 (NIT No.EE/F-03(4)/2024-25/293) under the head of Construction of Research Tower Building at Anjora Durg (Remaining Work) initiated on 23.09.2024 issued by respondent Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya, till the afresh final disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent Vice Chancellor after affording opportunity of hearing and allowing adducing of evidence, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents as a consequential relief (in the case the dispute is resolved in favor of the petitioner firm by the respondents) to release the amount due within a time frame along with earnest money and security deposit with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, in the interest of justice. 10.5 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that he does not want to press the relief claimed in para 10.3 of the writ petition, and he filed an application (I.A. No. 03/2025) for deleting clause 10.3 of the relief column from the petition. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the relief of 10.3 of the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Wps 5911 of 2024 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has not been provided proper opportunity of hearing while deciding the appeal, and an ex parte order has been passed. Therefore, the authorities may be directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 would submit that the petitioner has already availed the alternate remedy of the arbitration clause by filing the appeal as provided in Clause 32 of the contract, which was dismissed by the authority vide order dated 21-10-2024. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21-10-2024, he may take recourse of the arbitration clause under the terms of the contract. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material annexed with the petition, and also gone through the pleadings. 6. From perusal of clause 32 of the contract, it transpires that there is a provision of filing an appeal before the Vice Chancellor, who shall decide the appeal after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is also provided that if any party is not satisfied with the decision of the Vice Chancellor, he can refer such dispute for arbitration by an Arbitration Board to be constituted by the State government. Clause 32 of the contract is relevant here, which is as under:- Wps 5911 of 2024 5 ARBITRATION CLAUSE Clause-32:- Except as otherwise provided in this contract all question and dispute relating to the meaning of the specification drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to thing what so ever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract designs, drawings, specification estimate. Concerning the work or the execution of failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment there of shall be referred of 30 days of such occurrence. There upon the Executive Engineer. Shall give his written in instruction and/or decision within a period or 60 days of such request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Upon receipt of written instructions or decisions the parties shall properly proceed without delay to comply such instructions of decision? If the Executive Engineer fails to given his instructions or decision in writing within a period of 60 days is a mutually agreed time after being requested if the parties are aggrieved against the decision of Executive Engineer The parties may within 30 days prepare an appeal to the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor who shall afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Vice Chancellor will give his decision with 90 days if any party in not satisfied with the decision of the Vice Chancellor he can refer such disputes for arbitration by and Arbitration Board to be constituted by the State Govt. which shall consist of three members of when one shall be chosen from among the officers belonging the department not below the rank of S.E. one Retired Chief Engineer of any Technical department, and one serving officer not below the rank of S.E. belonging to another technical department. THE FOLLOWING ARE ALSO THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT NAMELY Wps 5911 of 2024 6 (a) No person other then the aforesaid Arbitration Board constituted by the Vishwavidyalaya (to handle cases of all Technical Department) shall act as Arbitrator and for any reason that as not possible the matter shall not be referred to Arbitration at all. (b) The State Govt. may at any time effect any change in the personnel of the Board and the new members or members appointed to the Arbitration Board shall be entitled to proceed with the presence from the stage at which at was left or his their predecessors. (c) The party invoking Arbitration shall specially the dispute to be reference to arbitration under this clause together with the amount or amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute(s). (d) Where the party invoking Arbitration is the contractor no reference for arbitration shall be maintainable unless the contractor furnished of security deposit of a sum determined according to the determination of the Arbitration proceeding be adjusted against the cost if any awarded by the Board against the party and the balance remaining after such adjustment or in the absence of the such cost being provided the whole of the sum shall be refunded to him within one month from the date of the award. Amount of claim Rate of security deposits For claim below Rs.10,000/- 5% of amount claimed For claim below Rs.10,000/- 3% of amount claim Above but below Rs.1,00,000/- subject to minimum of Rs.500/- For claim of Rs.Rs.1,00,000/-, and above 2% of the amount claimed subject to a minimum of Rs.3,000/- (e) If the contractor dose not make any demand for arbitration in respect of any claims in writing within 90 days on receiving intimation from the Executive Engineer that the final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the Wps 5911 of 2024 7 contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the Govt. shall be discharged respect of such claims. (f) A reference to the Arbitration Board shall be no ground for not continuing the work on the part of the contractor and payment as per terms and conditions of the agreement shall be continued by the Vishwavidyalaya. (g) Except where otherwise provided in this contract the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1940 and the rule made there under for the time being in force shall apply to the Arbitration proceeding under this clause. 7. Since the petitioner has already entered into a resolution of the dispute and invoked the arbitration clause by filing the appeal, which was decided by the Vice Chancellor, vide order dated 21-10-2024, he should exhaust the remedy provided under clause 32 of the contract. We do not find any scope for interference in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy of arbitration under the contract, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma