1 2025:CGHC:47108-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4869 of 2025 Vikrant Carriers A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At House No-57, (B) Street No.5, Ward No.23, Durg District- Durg, C.G. Through One Of Its Partners Namely Vikrant Singh S/o Late Ram Vijay Bahadur Singh Aged About 33 Years, R/o Deepak Nagar, Station Road, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Though The Secretary, Department of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chairman Cum Managing Director Police Housing Corporation Limited Old Police Headquarter, S.I.B. Building Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.09 .2025 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Koshta, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.16 10:32:01 +0530 2 assisted by Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State/Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent authorities to release the due/ undisputed amount of the petitioner along with interest @ 9% per annum within such outer limit as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondents to kindly disburse the due/ undisputed amount of the petitioner after finalization of the bills within such outer limit as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the instant case, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of 3 justice along with cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned action of the Respondent authorities in withholding the legitimate and undisputed dues of the Petitioner is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the State and its instrumentalities are duty bound to act fairly under Article 14 and cannot, even in the contractual domain, claim exemption from the public law obligation to act reasonably and justly. The State does not shed its character or obligation to act fairly while dealing with private parties in contractual matters, and investors who act on the representations made by the State are entitled to enforce fulfillment of those representations and contractual duties. In the present case, despite the Petitioner having successfully completed the work awarded to him in strict conformity with the terms of the contract and to the full satisfaction of the Respondent authorities, the Respondents have unjustifiably withheld the due and undisputed amounts payable. Such action is wholly unjust and contrary to the settled principle that when an instrumentality of the State acts in an unfair, unjust, and unreasonable manner, whether in contractual, statutory, or constitutional obligations, it offends the guarantee under Article 14. The Respondents, in the instant matter, have acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner by not disbursing the Petitioner’s dues despite there being no dispute regarding completion of the work. It is further 4 submitted that the Respondents cannot withhold the admitted payments indefinitely. For more than one year, the Petitioner has been running from pillar to post for release of his dues, yet the Respondents have failed to act. This prolonged and unjustified withholding of undisputed dues is not only arbitrary but also contrary to the public law duty imposed on the Respondents. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner has performed the work allotted to him without default or deficiency, and therefore the withholding of payment is illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, under the terms of the contract itself, once the contractor has completed the work in accordance with the stipulated conditions, there remains no lawful ground for the Respondents to retain the dues. In the present case, the Petitioner has completed the work successfully, and therefore the action of the Respondents in not disbursing the admitted dues is bad in law and wholly unsustainable. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 jointly submit that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the specific remedy available to the petitioner under Clause 28 of the agreement executed between the parties. It is urged that Clause 28 of the contract expressly provides for resolution of disputes through arbitration proceedings before the competent authority designated therein, and therefore, any grievance regarding termination of the 5 contract, forfeiture of security deposit, or imposition of penalty must be adjudicated in accordance with the said contractual mechanism. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the disputes raised by the Petitioner, touching upon the validity of the termination order, forfeiture of security deposit, and imposition of penalty, arise directly out of the contractual terms between the parties. Clause 28 of the agreement provides a specific mechanism for resolution of such disputes by way of arbitration before the competent authority. 7. In view of the settled position of law that where an efficacious alternative remedy is available and the parties are bound by the terms of their contract, the writ jurisdiction ought not to be exercised to adjudicate contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact, this Court finds no ground to entertain the present petition. 8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail the remedy available to him under Clause 28 of the agreement, which stipulates resolution of disputes through 6 arbitration proceedings. 9. In view of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the Petitioner, the present petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. It is further observed that the Petitioner shall also be at liberty to take recourse to such other remedies as may be available to him in law, if occasion so arises. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu