Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47928 (CHH)

M/S MOHAN PODDAR AND BUILDERS v. VIRENDRA KUMAR CHOUDHARI EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

CONT/1645/2025 · 2025-11-13

Shri Narendra Kumar Vyas

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:55501 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 1645 of 2025 M/s Mohan Poddar And Builders Through Its Partner Mohan Poddar, S/o Shri Vijay Poddar, Aged About 55 Years, Having Its Office At A/406, Crystal Arcade, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Virendra Kumar Choudhari Executive Engineer P.W.D. Department, Ambikapur Division, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. The applicant has filed the present contempt petition for non- compliance of this Court’s order dated 18.03.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1024 of 2019. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph 8 has passed following order which reads as under: “Taking into consideration the fact that the order of extension of time was not brought to the notice of the CAG at the time when the audit report of the year 2014-15 was prepared, the order BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.11.18 10:59:01 +0530 2 passed by respondent No. 4 is hereby set aside. The State Authorities are granted liberty to refer the matter to the CAG afresh along with the orders dated 30.10.2015 and 28.11.2013 whereby the period of contract was extended without penalty. It is expected that the CAG shall consider the matter afresh and issue appropriate directions in this regard.” 3. He would further submit that there is violation of order passed by this Court as orders dated 30.10.2015 & 28.11.2013 has been referred before the CAG but the order dated 26.09.2025 has been passed against the petitioner. 4. Considering the aforesaid submission, the instant petition is disposed of granting liberty to the applicant to challenge the said order and file afresh petition, if exigency so arises. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika