1 2025:CGHC:17976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1857 of 2025 1 - Mr. Vikash Agrawal S/o Late Ram Bilas Agrawal Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Shree Ram Nagar Ward, Old Market, Bacheli, Dantewada C.G. Pincode 494553. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (Cgrrda) Vikas Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 (As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 16-04-2025) 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (Cgrrda), Vikas Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001. 3 - The Superintending Engineer Project Implementation Unit No. 01, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (Cgrrda), District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 494553. 4 - The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary Project Implementation Unit No. 01, Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (Cgrrda), District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 494553. 5 - The District Collector, South Bastar District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 494553. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Kshitij Sharma, Advocate For State : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.06.07 15:42:16 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/04/2025 1. The reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this petition are as under: “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the subject contract for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court; and 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue such writ/orders/direction to the respondents to release the final bill of Rs. 1,94,559/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred & Fifty-Nine Only) and all security deposits & deductions which was approved to be paid by the Respondent authorities to the Petitioner with immediate effect; and 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the Petitioner; and 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. The petitioner has challenged the inaction and omission in the conduct of the Respondents whereby they have failed to pay the final bill of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs 1,94,559/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-Four Thousand and Five Hundred & Fifty-Nine Only) for the works of "Construction of Pipe Bridge, 3 Approach Road & Safety Works on Tumkapal Road" vide Tender Notice No.19 of CGRRDA/2017-18 dated 06/11/2017 with Agreement No.30 of CGRRDA/2017-18 dated 26/12/2017. The Petitioner completed the aforementioned work on or before 10/12/2020 and a Bill of Measurement dated 10/12/2020 has also been issued by the Respondent No. 4 in favour of the Petitioner evidencing the completion of works in all aspects. Thereafter, the Petitioner has requested the Respondents to release the said outstanding payment on multiple occasions vide his letter dated 12/01/2023, 06/02/2024 and 02/05/2024, but. the same has not been paid till date. There is no dispute whatsoever regarding the quality or quantity of the works executed. The final bill has been approved for payment. However, the payment for the same has not been made till date for no valid reason at all. The Respondent No. 4 has sent letter dated 08/04/2021 to the Respondent No. 5 seeking funds for the payment of final bill of the Petitioner which has not been released till date. Thus, in this scenario, the Petitioner has approached this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as more than 50 months have elapsed since the completion of the aforesaid works, more than 50 months have elapsed since the 3rd and final bill was passed for payment and more than 10 months has elapsed since the time the Petitioner has made his 3rd demand for payment of the bill and release of the security deposits and the Respondents are not releasing the payments 4 despite admitting their liability which is a blatant and egregious violation of the rights of the Petitioner. 3. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, there has been no dispute between the parties in respect of nature, quality and quantity or time taken by the petitioner in completion of the work. After completion of the work, the petitioner raised his bills and the respondent No. 4 has approved and recommended for payment of the claim of the petitioner, but, the respondents have not released a single penny till date. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that when there is no dispute whatsoever in respect of the amount payable to the petitioner, there is no reason why the same should not be released. Paucity of funds can never be a ground for not releasing the admissible dues of a person. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, opposing the petition, submits that the petitioner, in fact, by way of this petition, has filed a suit for recovery or a money suit, which, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. His further contention is that for the settlement of dues or for settlement of claim arising out of a contract, writ remedy is not a solution. The petitioner ought to have approached the competent Civil Court or should have raised an arbitration dispute for release of the money, if any, 5 if at all he is entitled for. Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard the rival contentions put forth on behalf of the parties and perused the record with due care. 6. The admitted factual position is that the petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondents. The petitioner discharged his contractual obligation by executing the work to the satisfaction of the respondents. From the correspondence that are made available with the writ petition, there does not seem to be any dispute in respect of quality or quantity of the executed work, nor is there any dispute in respect of time taken by the petitioner in execution of the said work. 7. Under the given circumstances, the question is, should the petitioner be relegated to approach the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit for redressal of his grievances, particularly, when there is no dispute between the parties. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ABL International Ltd. and another v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and others, (2004) 3 SCC 553, has held as under: “23. It is clear the above observations of this Court, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of 6 Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the abovesaid requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent. 26. Therefore, this objection must also fail because in a given case it is open to the writ court to give such monetary relief also. 27. From the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition: (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.” 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and another v. SECL Ltd. and others, (2008) 3 SCC 440, in paragraphs 15 to 18, has held as under: 7 “15. When supply of sugar was made in terms of a statutory order as also on the directions issued by the Central Government and in the cases there did not exist any factual dispute, we do not see any reason as to why the writ petitions would not be maintainable. 16. It is now no longer res integra that contractual disputes involving public law element are amenable to writ jurisdiction. In these cases, the Central Government not only scrutinized the bills but also verified the claims of the respondents. A direction was issued to make payment. Appellant, which is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, withheld payment without any legal justification. 17. The High Court referred to several letters issued by the Central Government to arrive at the conclusion that where sugar had been lifted by a third party without any complaint, protest or demur of shortages, there was no reason as to why payment therefore could not be made. 18. Appellant could not have withheld payment on the basis of the purported shortages in supply of sugar under the contracts made by the respondents many many years back, save and except under the terms of binding contract.” 10. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 2 SCC 439, wherein it 8 has been held that order of payment of money which is admissible and where there is no dispute, can be made in a writ proceedings in exercise of powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Following the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court in Om Sai Traders and Tent House v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, Writ Appeal No.38 of 2015, decided on 19.02.2015, set aside a judgment passed by a Single Bench dismissing a writ petition of similar nature and while allowing the Writ Appeal, relying upon the aforesaid judgments, has held as under: “6. In absence of any disputed facts or dispute regarding the amount of money being involved, we are not inclined to relegate the Appellant to the remedy of a Civil Suit. 7. Let the remaining dues of the Appellant reckoned in accordance to the respondents letter dated 22.03.2014 and 26.03.2014, after adjustment of the payment already made, be paid to the Appellant within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt and /or production of a copy of this order failing which the Appellant shall be at liberty to claim interest upon the same.” 12. Recently, this Court also in WPC No.544 of 2020 in the case of Vijay Kumar Garg v. State of Chhattisgarh and 9 others, decided on 06.02.2020, again considered the aforesaid judgments and allowed the writ petition directing the respondents to process the admissible claim of the petitioner and release the same, at the earliest. 13. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to immediately process the claim of the petitioner and to release the admissible dues payable to the petitioner after due verification and after adjustment of any payment either already made or any statutory deductions to be made from the dues payable to the petitioner. Let the amount be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the petitioner shall also be entitled for simple interest on the said amount @ 6 percent per annum from the date the amount fell due till the payment is actually made. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh