1 2025:CGHC:54802-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5877 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o P. L. Mittal Aged About 59 Years R/o Main Road Korba, Tehsil- Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Works, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Public Work Department, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh 492002 3 - The Chief Engineer Public Work Department, Bridge Circle, Civil Lines, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Work Department (Bridge Division) Behind Akashwani Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Executive Engineer Public Work Department (Bridge) Jagdalpur Division, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.11.13 10:51:35 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs: “10.1) That the Hon'ble Court may be please to issue the writ of appropriate nature to quash the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 (ΑNNEXURE P/1) decided by the Chief Engineer. by exercising power under Clause 1.17 of the agreement, as illegal, and contrary to the provision of natural justice, in the interest of justice. 10.2) That the Hon'ble Court may be please to issue the writ of appropriate nature to quash the impugned tender dated 07.10.2025 (ΑNNEXURE P/2) as the same has been floated prematurely with predetermined minds, thereby rendering all appellate remedies a mere formality, in the interest of justice. 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4) 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.” 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was awarded the work of construction of a High-Level Bridge including an approach 3 road across the Indravati River in Bedre-Lanka-Nagur Road vide work order dated 23.01.2021. During the execution of the work, in February 2022, one of the engineers supervising the work was abducted by Naxalites and released with a warning to stop the construction. Consequently, the petitioner temporarily halted the work and sought police protection on 01.12.2023, thereafter the work was resumed. However, the petitioner was later issued a show-cause notice dated 20.11.2024 for slow progress, which was duly replied to, but the work was terminated on 15.01.2025 without considering the reply. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause on 31.01.2025 and also sought permission on 25.06.2025 to complete the remaining work, which was ignored. Instead, the authorities issued an order dated 01.05.2025 for cancellation of the petitioner’s license and a recovery order of Rs.6.03 Crores on 24.06.2025. The said orders were challenged before this Court in WPC No. 3501/2025, which was disposed of on 09.07.2025 directing the petitioner to move a fresh application under Clause 1.17 of the agreement and restraining coercive action. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed a fresh application before the Superintending Engineer on 14.07.2025, which was dismissed on 25.07.2025. An appeal was thereafter preferred before the Chief Engineer on 11.08.2025, during the pendency of which, the respondents floated the impugned tender dated 07.10.2025 for the same work. The Chief Engineer, acting as the appellate 4 authority, subsequently dismissed the appeal on 31.10.2025 without granting an opportunity of hearing or to adduce evidence, in violation of Clause 1.17 and principles of natural justice. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Clause 1.17 of the agreement, though there is a remedy to approach arbitration tribunal is available against the order of the Chief Engineer, the petitioner by filing the present petition has challenged not only the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 but also the impugned tender dated 07.10.2025, as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate. It is submitted that the Chief Engineer, while acting as the appellate authority, passed the impugned order in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and Clause 1.17 of the agreement, without affording any opportunity of hearing or permitting the petitioner to lead evidence. It is further urged that the said order was passed with mala fide intention and ulterior motive on the very same day when the petitioner’s earlier writ petition bearing WPC No. 5666/2025 was listed before this Court, only to render it infructuous. It is further submitted that the appeal against the order of the Superintending Engineer was filed on 11.08.2025, and though the report from the Executive Engineer was received on 23.09.2025, the Chief Engineer deliberately withheld the decision and hurriedly passed the impugned order only on 31.10.2025. This sequence of 5 events clearly reflects bias, malice, and a pre-determined intention to reject the petitioner’s appeal. The impugned order is a non- speaking order passed mechanically without dealing with the petitioner’s detailed submissions or grounds, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The premature floating of the tender dated 07.10.2025 during the pendency of the appeal also demonstrates that the authorities had already decided the outcome against the petitioner. Hence, the entire action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and vitiated by malafides, and therefore, the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 (Annexure P/1) along with the impugned tender dated 07.10.2025 (Annexure P/2) deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that if any dispute is arrived at there, the petitioner is having an alternative remedy to approach the appropriate forum to redress his grievance. Learned State counsel would further submit that in view of the arbitration clause 1.17 of the tender, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Chief Engineer which has been challenged in the present petition, he may approach the Chhattisgarh Madhyastha Adhikaran Raipur and further submits that the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy as per the conditions of the work order, has straightaway approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 6 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 6. There is an arbitration clause No. 1.17 for settlement of disputes through arbitration, which reads as under :- “1.17 ARBITRATION CLAUSE: Except as otherwise provided in this contract all question and dispute, relating to the meaning of the specifications designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to thing whatsoever, in any way, arising out of or relating to the contract designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the works or after the completion abandonment thereof shall be referred to the superintending Engineer shall give his written instructions and/or decisions within a period of 60 days of such request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Upon receipt of written instructions of decisions, the parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such instruction or decision, If the superintending Engineer fails to give his instructions or decisions in writing with in a period of 60 days or mutually agreed time after being requested or if the parties may within 60 days refer and appeal to the Chief Engineer who shall afford an opportunity to the parties of being heart and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The chief Engineer will give his decision within 90 days. If any party is not satisfied with the decision of the Chief Engineer, he can, refer such dispute for arbitration governed as per "The Chhattishgarh/Madhyastha Abhikaran Raipur.” 7 7. Perusal of the above arbitration clause would show that the agreement specifically provides for a detailed mechanism under Clause 1.17, which contemplates an appellate remedy before the Chief Engineer and thereafter, a statutory remedy before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran at Raipur. 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the dispute raised by the petitioner arises out of a contractual obligation governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already availed the remedy before the Chief Engineer, who has passed the order dated 31.10.2025, and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the appropriate course available under law is to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal as provided under the conditions of tender. 9. This Court finds that the primary grievance of the petitioner pertains to the termination of work and consequential recovery proceedings, which essentially involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact, appreciation of evidence, and contractual interpretation - matters which are not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The plea that the impugned tender dated 07.10.2025 was floated during the pendency of the petitioner’s appeal does not, by itself, create any exceptional circumstance warranting interference by this Court, 8 particularly when the petitioner has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy available. 10. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not ordinarily be exercised. 11. 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 an adequate efficacious alternate remedy is available there. 12. 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. 13. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, does not ordinarily interfere in purely contractual or commercial disputes, especially when a specific alternative forum has been provided by law for redressal of grievances. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any violation of fundamental rights or such extraordinary circumstance which may justify deviation from the settled principle of alternative remedy. 14. In light of the above submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, keeping in mind the settled legal position, and considering the fact that the appeal of the petitioner has already been 9 dismissed by the Chief Engineer vide impugned order dated 31/10/2025 and as per arbitration clause 1.17, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to approach the arbitration tribunal, this Court finds no reason to entertain the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner and despite the said fact without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner straightaway approached this Court by filing the instant petition. Further the petitioner seeks any relief with respect to the NIT and if there is any prejudice caused by the impugned order, he can claim compensation, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the present writ petition. 15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail the remedy available under Clause 1.17 of the agreement by approaching the Chhattisgarh Madhyastha Adhikaran, Raipur, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice $.Bhilwar