1 2025:CGHC:47181-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4911 of 2025 M/s R.R. Industries Betul M.P. (Joint Venture) Through Its Authorized Signatory / Representative, Firoz Patel Son Of Haji Ahmed Patel, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Near Gujrati Jain Mandir, Ganj Betul, District- Betul, Madhya Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) Through Its Chairman- Cum-Managing Director, Secl Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Pincode – 495555 2 - General Manager (CSR), Secl Secl Headquaters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Pincode- 495555 3 - General Manager (Finance), SECL SECL Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Pincode-495555 4 - General Manager (Operations/medical) SECL SECL Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Pincode- 495555 5 - General Sub-Area Manager (Headquarters) SECL SECL Headquarters, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Pincode- 495555 6 - State Bank of India Through Its General Manager, Betul Branch, Madhya Pradesh. 7 - ICICI Bank Limited Through Its General Manager, Betul Branch, Madhya Pradesh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.16 10:32:01 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, Advocate holding brief of Mr. P.R. Patankar, 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. Kishore Bhaduri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Pragati Pandey, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 to 4 and Mr. Mayank Mulchandani, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6. 2 The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following relief(s):- “A. Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to immediately implement and release the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) uniformly across all 13 SECL areas under Work Order No. 129 dated 03.09.2024 so that the operation of the Mobile Medical Units (MMUs) may commence without further delay, and further directing the Respondents to honour the terms and conditions of the 3 original Notice Inviting Tender (Annexure P/1 and P/2) without imposing or enforcing any additional conditions Introduced post-tender, whether under the Work Order or the SOP, which are inconsistent with the tender terms, in view of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. B. Direct the Respondents to strictly comply with the terms of Clause 21 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) as incorporated in the Work Order, and to release payments to the Petitioner within the stipulated time frame prescribed therein. The Respondents are further bound to ensure that no undue delay occurs in disbursement of the payable amounts, so as to enable smooth operation of the project and timely payment of salaries to the engaged manpower. C. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, a duly constituted Joint Venture firm, was constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court on account of the wholly arbitrary and high-handed actions of the Respondents in relation to the project for operation of 13 Mobile Medical Units (MMUs) floated under the CSR initiative of SECL. Pursuant to the NIT floated by the Respondents, certain clear and specific conditions were prescribed, including 4 procurement of ambulances, their modification with prescribed medical equipment, and deployment thereof at designated sites. Acting in utmost good faith and in strict adherence to the terms of the NIT, the Petitioner procured 14 vehicles, duly modified them, and stationed them at the respective sites by the first week of November 2024. However, subsequent to the issuance of the Work Order, the Respondents, in an arbitrary and unilateral manner, sought to introduce new conditions, particularly with respect to inspection and payment mechanism, which were wholly inconsistent with the original NIT. 4 It is respectfully submitted by learned Senior Counsel that such conduct, being contrary to the solemn representations contained in the NIT, squarely attracts the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the Respondents are estopped in law from resiling from the terms which formed the basis of the Petitioner’s investment and participation in the project. He further submits that despite full compliance by the Petitioner, and despite certification of the vehicles as fit for use by the Chief Medical Officer, arbitrary objections were raised by officers having no nexus with the health department, thereby stalling the commencement of the project. Till date, not a single month’s payment has been released in favour of the Petitioner. The belated issuance of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on 30.05.2025 has only aggravated the confusion and delay, and even after issuance of the SOP, the Respondents have failed to release payments. This has resulted 5 in complete frustration of the contractual obligations undertaken by the Petitioner. As per Clause 1 of the SOP, the liability to pay salaries of the doctors, paramedical staff, and support staff lies with the Petitioner. Acting on such stipulation, the Petitioner engaged substantial manpower. However, on account of non- payment of dues for the last seven months, the Petitioner has been rendered incapable of disbursing salaries, which has led to large-scale resignations, threats of legal proceedings before the Labour Court, and paralysing of operations. The Petitioner is now facing severe financial distress, being unable to service EMIs of the procured vehicles, which has adversely affected its CIBIL rating and overall financial standing. This is solely attributable to the Respondents’ failure to honour their obligations. It has been contended that repeated written representations have been submitted by the Petitioner before the Respondents, but the same have gone unheeded. The Respondents’ conduct, therefore, is not only arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of contractual obligations, but also results in infringement of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, warranting interference of this Court. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the Respondents are directed to forthwith release the legitimate dues of the Petitioner, and further to ensure that the project is operationalized in terms of the original NIT and Work Order, without imposing any extraneous or arbitrary conditions. 6 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No.1 to 4 submits that detailed communications were issued to the Petitioner on 04.08.2025 pointing out several serious lapses on its part, namely: (i) persistent and deliberate non-compliance with the contractual terms; (ii) misrepresentation regarding the jurisdiction of inspection; (iii) submission of fraudulent and fabricated bills; (iv) making of baseless and unfounded allegations against SECL officials; (v) unprofessional conduct coupled with incompetence in execution of the work; and (vi) failure of the Petitioner to execute the formal agreement despite the same having already been signed by SECL. It is further submitted that another communication dated 03.09.2025 was also issued highlighting area-wise non-compliances in respect of various project sites including Gevra, Kusmunda, Dipka, Korba, Raigarh, Sohagpur Area, Jamuna Kotma, Baikunthpur, Hasdeo, Chirmiri, Bishrampur, Bhatgaon and Johila. 6 In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that no such communications dated 04.08.2025 or 03.09.2025 have ever been received by the Petitioner till date. 7 Be that as it may, this Court directs the Respondents No.1 to 4 to furnish copies of the aforesaid communications dated 04.08.2025 and 03.09.2025 to the Petitioner, whereupon the Petitioner shall be at liberty to submit an appropriate reply in accordance with law, if so advised. 7 8 At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner prays for permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedies as may be available to the Petitioner in law, if occasion so arises. 9 In view of the prayer so made, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty, as prayed for, granted in favour of the Petitioner. 10 Let the certified copies of the impugned annexures be returned to learned counsel for the Petitioner after retaining photocopies of the same on record. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu