1 2025:CGHC:19330-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1403 of 2025 M/s Shri Vijay Kumar Singh Through - Partner- Ajay Singh S/o Shri R.B. Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Behind Police Line, Bauripara, Ambikapur, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Sarguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Engineer P.W.D. (Bridge Division), C.G. Rural Road Development Authority, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintending Engineer Project Division-1, C.G. Rural Road Development Authority, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) 5 - The Executive Engineer Project Implementation Unit-1, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.) 6 - M/s Shri Sai Associates Near Bus Stand Sitapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate. For State/respondents No. 1 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. to 5 For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board 2 Per Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 29.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for State- Respondent and Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P-1), passed by Respondent No. 5, terminating the petitioner’s contract agreement for Package No. CGLSB 07-22, as well as the arbitrary, unreasonable, and whimsical demand of 1.13 crore imposed by order dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P-9), and further declare the same as illegal, void, and volative of the principles of natural justice. II. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the Acceptance and Work Order issued to respondent No. 6 pursuant to NIT dated 25.11.2024 and Acceptance dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure P-12), granting the remaining work to a third party at an exorbitant rate of 18.8% + GST above the Probable Amount of Contract, causing immense loss to the public exchequer. III) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner’s contract for package No. CGLSB 07-22 and allow the petitioner to complete the remaining work as per the agreement executed in favour of the petitioner, without imposing any liquidated damages or penalties. IV) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to, in view of the arbitrary and unjust actions of the Respondents, it is imperative that the representation letter dated 02.12.2024, 3 submitted by the petitioner, be duly considered by the concerned authorities (Respondent No. 3) in a fair and just manner. V) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction to the Respondents to conduct a fair and impartial hearing before taking any coercive action against the petitioner, and provide an opportunity to the petitioner to present its case with all relevant documents and evidence; VI) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted, in the interest of justice.” 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 5 whereby contract agreement of the petitioner has been terminated for package No. CGLSB 07-22 involving the construction of (1) Bridge across Lawa River on Sogada to Manora Road at RD 3200 m, under contract No. 124/11 dated 23.02.2021: and (2) Bridge across Lawa River on Jariya at Kujari Road at RD 6000m, under working Order No. 275 dated 01.03.2021 and the petitioner is also challenging the order dated 05.11.2024 wherein an illegal demand of Rs. 1.13 crore has been made as a precursor to the hearing on revocation of the agreement of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner, a contractor, who participated in the bid, was found suitable and contract was awarded to him. The work order Sanctioning for construction of Bridge Across Lawa River on Sogada to Manora Road at RD 3200 M and Bridge across Lawa River on Jariya to Kujari Road at 4 RD 6000 M under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana in District Jashpur and routine maintenance for five years after completion of construction, was issued in favor of petitioner vide order dated 09.02.2021. In furtherance of the Work Order issued in favour of the petitioner, a contract was signed and Notice dated 01.03.2021 was issued to proceed with the execution of the said works in accordance with the contact documents. Subsequent to the issuance of the Work Order in February 2021, the Petitioner commenced construction activities in earnest, duly arranging and deploying all necessary construction materials, machinery and labor at the designated site. As per the tender conditions, the work was to be completed within 16 months from the date of issuance of work order but the petitioner failed to complete the above mentioned work within prescribed period. The petitioner addressed various letters seeking extension of time to complete the said work, therefore the extension of time for completion of work was granted in his favour. Vide order dated 04.07.2024, the respondent-authorities have terminated the contract agreement for package No. CGLSB 07-22 and thereafter the respondent- authorities initiated a fresh tender process for construction of above mentioned remaining construction work. The respondent No. 6 has participated in the fresh tender proceedings vide NIT dated 25.11.2024 and the respondent No. 6 was selected as L-1 on 17.12.2024, thereafter the letter of acceptance was issued on 27.12.2024 and work order etc., was issued in favour of respondent No. 6 on 02.01.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a contract was 5 executed and a notice to proceed the work was issued on 01.03.2021. The petitioner commenced work promptly, arranging necessary materials, machinery and labour. However, the petitioner faced multiple unforeseen challenges, leading to delays like; Covid-19 Restrictions, Design changes, Rainfall, River Water Levels, High Material Costs, Elections and Festivals. Therefore, the petitioner sought an extension until March 2025 to complete the work, citing detailed reasons for delay. Despite diligent efforts, the work order was terminated by the Executing Engineer without providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. He further submits that the petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2024 where in travelling beyond the clauses of the agreement, an illegal demand of Rs. 1.12 crore has been made as a precursor to hearing on revocation of the Agreement of the petitioner while there being no such clause in the agreement of imposing any penalty prior to granting any hearing to the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has challenged the acceptance and work order issued in NIT dated 25.11.2024, wherein an acceptance of the balance work/remaining work of the agreement of the petitioner has been granted at an exorbitant rate of 18.8% + GST above the probable amount of contract, while the rate quoted by the petitioner being at -7 % of the probable amount of contract thereby causing huge loss of 25% + GST to the public exchequer. It is settled proposition that public interest overrides contract law in public procurement. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held time and again that the State is the trustee of public resources, and any 6 action which leads to wastage of public funds, even under the guise of tender policy, is amenable to judicial review. In support of this contention, he places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sudhir Kumar Kad v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), reported in (2021) 19 SCC 703. 6. Mr. Tripathi submits that despite financial hardships and personal challenges, the petitioner completed 90% of the bridge at RD 6000m (Jariya to Kujari Road) and gathered materials for the remaining work. On 17.03.2025 he has filed an affidavit in which he stated that the petitioner has already executed/completed 95% of the work till date and he undertakes that the petitioner is in a position to complete the entire work by 31st December 2025. 7. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 5, placing reliance on the impugned communication dated 04.07.2024, submits that since more than 38 months had elapsed but there was no satisfactory progress in the work done by the petitioner, the contract was terminated in light of clause 52 of the agreement. He further submits that fresh NIT was floated and the respondent No. 6 has also been awarded the work order and he has performed some part of the work also and as such, he submits that no interference is warranted at this stage. 8. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that as per the tender clause, the work was to be completed within 16 months from the date of issuance of work order but the petitioner failed to complete the work within 7 prescribed period, therefore the extension of time for completion of work was granted in his favour but even thereafter the petitioner failed to complete the work. Therefore the respondent-authorities cancelled the work order issued in his favour and initiated a fresh tender process for construction of remaining construction work and the respondent No. 6 has participated in the fresh tender proceedings vide NIT dated 25.11.2024 and he was selected as L-1 on 17.12.2024, thereafter the letter of acceptance was issued on 27.12.2024 and work order was issued in his favour on 02.01.2025. He started the construction in the field allotted to him vide work order dated 02.01.2025. 9. Mr. Sharma further submits that the petitioner was aware about the fresh tender process but he has not challenged the same and when the respondent No. 6 started the work, only to harass the respondent No. 6, by suppressing the material facts, has filed the instant petition for causing delay in the construction work. He submits that the tender/work order issued in favour of petitioner has been cancelled which has been done strictly in accordance with law which needs no interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. During the course of hearing on 17.03.2025, when the matter was taken up this Court had directed the petitioner to submit an affidavit with respect to his ability to complete the entire remaining work with respect to package no. CGLSB 7-2022 involving the construction of: (1) Bridge across Lawa River on Sogada to Manora Road at RD 8 3200 m, under Contract No. 124/11 dated 23.02.2021; and Bridge across Lawa River on Jariya at Kujari Road at RD 6000 m, under Working Order No. 275 dated 01.03.2021. In compliance of the order dated 17.03.2025; the petitioner had filed an affidavit, the relevant portion of which reads as under: “➤ (1) Bridge across Lawa River on Sogada to Manora Road at RD 3200 m, under Contract No. 124/11 dated 23.02.2021; the petitioner has already executed 95% of the work as of 17.03.2025 and only formal inspection with regard to the same remains, the petitioner duly states that, the petitioner will complete the same within any stipulated time granted by this Hon'ble Court and: ➤ (2) With respect to Bridge across Lawa River on Jariya at Kujari Road at RD 6000 m, under Working Order No. 275 dated 01.03.2021, the petitioner has completed the lay-out of the entire core work i.e. piles and foundation and the petitioner is in a position to compete the entire 100% work within 31st December 2025 subject to any interference by any act of god or except rainy season. 3. That, the petitioner also states that, the respondents have demanded liquidated damages in advance from the petitioner in the interest of public exchequer, to which the petitioner duly and willingly consents for the same: to be deducted from the running bills presented by the petitioner in execution of the entire work to a tune of 5% per Running bill from the pending and the upcoming running bills of the petitioner. 4. That, it is also stated that, the petitioner had previously already provided two affidavits dated 02.09.2024 and 02.12.2024 which is attached in 9 the present affidavit Stating that, in case the petitioner is granted a final time extension, till 31 December 2025, the petitioner will duly bound to complete the work in its entirety. 5. That, the petitioner is ready and willing to complete the remaining work in the old rate which earlier quoted by the petitioner at 7.11% below as mentioned in the work order as per the guidelines and the conditions of the agreement.” 12. The State has not come up with any return/response to the above affidavit as to whether the petitioner has completed the works as aforesaid and as nor the learned State counsel has made any submission in this regard. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has tried to suggest that after cancellation of the agreement with the petitioner, the work order has been issued to the respondent No. 6 for the remaining portion of work which he claims to have started and in this regard, some photographs have also been annexed alongwith a covering memo filed on 28.04.2025 and prayed that the work order awarded to the respondent No. 6 may not be disturbed as it may cause irreparable losses to him. 13. 13. When the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the percentage of work completed by it has not been controverted by the State/respondents, which had floated the NIT in question, the State/respondents ought to have taken a lenient view and ought to have granted some more time for completion of the balance work. The petitioner has further undertaken before this Court that by 31st December, 2025, he would complete the balance work. 10 14. In view of the above, we are inclined to allow this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 04.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 5 as well as the order dated 05.11.2024 (Annexure P/9). Further, the NIT dated 25.11.2024 by which the remaining work has been awarded to the respondent No. 6, is also set aside and the petitioner is permitted to complete the balance work as undertaken by him i.e. by 31st December, 2025. 15. So far as the grievance of the respondent No. 6 is concerned, since this petition is filed by the petitioner and not the respondent No. 6, if the respondent No. 6 has any grievance, he may take recourse to appropriate forum in accordance with law. 16. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti