1 2025:CGHC:6779 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4504 of 2019 1 - M/S Sheeji Build Porject A Partnership Firm At 28, State Bank Colony, Sunder Nagar, Raipur 492013 Through Its Partner Sanjaybhai M. Varsani...(Petitioner), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Public Works Department , Atal Nagar , Raipur 492001, Chhattisgarh..(Respondent), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Deputy Secretary Public Works Department , Atal Nagar , Raipur - 492001 Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Engineer- In- Chief Public Works Department Atal Nagar, Raipur 492001, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Bridge Zone - Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Bridge Construction Circle - Raipur , Atal Nagar Raipur - 492001, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department Bridge Construction Division Raipur , Atal Nagar, Raipur 492001 Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - G.S. Express Private Limited C- 877, Mahanagar, Lucknow 226006, Uttar Pradesh., District : Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Rishabh Garg, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 06.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for the following reliefs: “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the subject tender for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue such writ/orders/direction to the respondent authorities to release the pending sum of Rs. 14,53,24,349.84/- to the petitioner with immediate effect. 10.3) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue such writ/orders / direction to the respondent authorities to take a decision pertaining to the continuation or foreclosure of the construction of the Sky Walk project at Raipur (CG) and communicate the same to the petitioner with immediate effect. 10.4) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the State would submit that this petition has been filed by the Sub-Contractor whereas, the agreement was executed between the Contractor (respondent No.7) and State on 24.4.2017. He would further submit that the agreement itself contains an arbitration clause, and the contractor or sub-contractor may approach the competent authority in accordance with Clause 22 of the agreement. He would submit that the dispute between the same parties was considered in WP(C) No. 5551 of 2024 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, wherein liberty was also reserved in favour of the petitioner to invoke Clause 22 of the agreement. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would not oppose the submissions made by counsel for the State. 4. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke Clause 22 of the agreement and avail the remedy under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 5. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi