1 2025:CGHC:49126-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5089 of 2025 M/s Anil Construction Through Its Proprietor Namely Shri Anil Kumar Singh S/o Shri Laxmi Shankar Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Sai Nagar, Jora Raipur Tahsil Raipur And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 2 - The Nava Raipur Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran Through The Chief Executive Officer, Navaj Raipur Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer Nava Raipur Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Engineer Nava Raipur Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block Sector 19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respective Respondent : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.09.26 10:58:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25.09.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. To issue a command directing the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the of the impugned orders dated 23/06/2025 and 13/05/2024 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2. To issue a suitable writ quashing the impugned 2024 orders dated 23/06/2025 and 13/05/2024 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) issued by the respondent authorities. 10.3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2. (I) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the legality, propriety and validity of the order dated 23/06/2025 passed by the respondent No. 4 Chief Engineer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran whereby the application of the petitioner for revocation of termination order dated 13/05/2024 under clause No. 25 of the Contract has been rejected by affirming the termination of contract. He further submits that the petitioner is also assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 13/05/2024 passed by the respondent 3 No. 3 Chief Executive Officer, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner has been terminated under clause No. 3 (iii) of the agreement/ contract. (II) Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was awarded and issued the letter of acceptance cum work order for construction of Internal Storm Water Drainage work and Nala training work for COSA Military Station and other Miscellaneous work at Sector 12 of Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (CG.). The estimated cost of the aforesaid work /project was Rs. 4,64,85,763/- and the stipulated period of completion of work in question was fixed as 6 months. The petitioner pursuant to the said letter of acceptance cum work order, commenced the work, but, due to unavoidable circumstances and obstacles and hindrances, the petitioner was not able to complete the project work and therefore, moved application for grant of extension of time upon which timeline was extended firstly up till 31/12/2023, secondly up till 31/03/2024 and lastly up till 10/06/2024 and pursuant to the said extension of time, the petitioner made its all sincere and best efforts to complete the project work within the extended time period and in the execution of the work, the petitioner also informed the respondent authorities about the obstacles and hindrances available in the site, due to which, the petitioner was not able to carry on and complete the project work, but, before expiry of the said extension period, assigning 4 the reason of poor progress in work, the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily terminated the work of contract awarded to the petitioner vide impugned order dated 13/05/2024. Thereafter, the petitioner moved application for reconsideration/revocation of termination order before the respondents which was kept on hold by the respondents for about one and half years without any rhyme and reason and by the impugned order dated 23/06/2025, the application of the petitioner for reconsideration and revocation of termination order has been rejected and the termination order has been affirmed by the respondents. The impugned orders have been issued by the respondent authorities in a cryptic and arbitrary manner that too without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner highlighting the obstacles and hindrances available in the site. It is submitted that the said obstacle/hindrance available on the site was beyond the control of the petitioner and this was the reason there was delay in completing the project work by the petitioner. Hence, the impugned orders dated 13/05/2024 and 23/06/2025 (Annexure P/2 and P/1) are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law and deserve to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the respondents authorities assigning the reason of poor progress in work, the 5 respondents have rightly passed the impugned orders and terminated the work of contract awarded to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. The matter relates to termination of contract and subsequent dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner for revocation of the termination order. 6. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote arbitration clause of the tender document. It reads thus : Clause 25: (1) If the contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request the CE (E) in writing for written instruction or decision. Thereupon, the CE (E) shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the contractor's letter. If the CE(E) fails to give his instructions or decision in 6 writing within the aforesaid period or if the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the CE(E), the contractor may. within 15 days of the receipt of CE(E) decision, appeal to the Chief Executive Officer who shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard, if the latter so desires, and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Chief Executive Officer shall give his decision within 30 days of receipt of contractor's appeal. If the contractor is dissatisfied with this decision, the contractor shall within a period of 30 days from receipt of the decision, give notice to the Chairman NRANVP for appointment of arbitrator on prescribed proforma as per Appendix XV, failing which the said decision shall be final binding and conclusive and not referable to adjudication by the arbitrator. (ii) Except where the decision has become final, binding and conclusive in terms of Sub Para (i) above, disputes or difference shall be referred for adjudication through arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by the Chairman NRANVP, If the arbitrator so appointed is unable or unwilling to act or resigns his appointment or vacates his office due to any reason whatsoever, another sole arbitrator shall be appointed in the manner aforesaid. Such person 7 shall be entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage at which it was left by his predecessor. It is a term of this contract that the party invoking arbitration shall give a list of disputes with amounts claimed in respect of each such dispute along with the notice for appointment of arbitrator and giving reference to the rejection by the Chief Executive Officer of the appeal. It is also a term of this contract that no person, other than a person appointed by the Chairman NRANVP, NRANVP as aforesaid, should act as arbitrator and if for any reason that is not possible, the matter shall not be referred to arbitration at all. It is also a term of this contract that if the contractor does not make any demand for appointment of arbitrator in respect of any claims in writing as aforesaid within 120 days of receiving the intimation from the Engineer-in-charge that the final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the NRANVP shall be discharged and released of all liabilities under the contract in respect of these claims. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with 8 the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) or any statutory modifications or re-enactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceeding under this clause. It is also a term of this contract that the arbitrator shall adjudicate on only such disputes as are referred to him by the appointing authority and give separate award against each dispute and claim referred to him and in all cases where the total amount of the claims by any party exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/-, the arbitrator shall give reasons for the award. It is also a term of the contract that if any fees are payable to the arbitrator, these shall be paid equally by both the parties. It is also a term of the contract that the arbitrator shall be deemed to have entered on the reference on the date he issues notice to both the parties calling them to submit their statement of claims and counter statement of claims. The venue of the arbitration shall be such place as may be fixed by the arbitrator in his sole discretion. The fees, if any, of the arbitrator shall, if required to be paid before the award is made and published, be paid half and half by each of the parties. The cost of the reference and of the award 9 (including the fees, if any, of the arbitrator) shall be in the discretion of the arbitrator who may direct to any by whom and in what manner, such costs or any part thereof shall be paid and fix or settle the amount of costs to be so paid." 7. On bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that in the subject tender process, there is arbitration clause which categorically provides that if the contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or disputes any drawings, record or decision given in writing by the Engineer-in-Charge on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or carrying out of the work, to be unacceptable, he shall promptly within 15 days request the CE (E) in writing for written instruction or decision. Thereupon, the CE (E) shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of one month from the receipt of the contractor's letter. 8. In view of the arbitration Clause 25 embedded in the contract, which provides a comprehensive and statutorily recognized dispute resolution, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an effective, adequate, and efficacious alternative remedy available. The mere allegation that the impugned orders are a non-speaking one does not, in itself, justify bypassing the agreed contractual and statutory forum, particularly when the dispute pertains to contractual obligations and administrative 10 decisions under a tender process. 9. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 11. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 12. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Clause 25 of the contract, if so advised. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep