1 2025:CGHC:51569-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5167 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o P.L. Mittal Aged About 59 Years Occupation A Class Contractor R/o Main Road Korba P.S. And Tehsil Korba District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chief Engineer Public Works Department Naya Raipur Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Executive Engineer Public Works Department Division Jagdalpur District - Jagdalpur (C.G.) 4. Executive Engineer Public Works Department Division Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 5. Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department Circle Civil Lines District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/ State: Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, A.G. with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.16 17:08:04 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/10/2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, A.G. with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following prayer:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 14/07/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No. 2 demoting the petitioner's contractor Licence from Class 'A' to Class 'B' for the work of Asna to Khadakghat Marg Contract No. 12/DL-2022-23. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in the upcoming Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT)'s. 10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was awarded the contract under NIT No. 501/TC/2021-22, having emerged as the L1 bidder, for the construction of an L-Bridge over the Indrawati River at KM 1/8 on the NH-30 to Khadakghat road, located in the Jagdalpur area—a region recognized as a core naxalite zone. As per the terms of the contract, the construction 3 was to be completed by 31.10.2025. During the execution of the project, various delays occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, including the presence of high-tension 33 KV electricity lines, delay in disbursal of compensation for land acquisition, and delayed receipt of design drawings from the department. These reasons were acknowledged in a communication dated 27.02.2025 from the Executive Engineer, Division Raipur, to the Executive Engineer, Division Jagdalpur. Despite the petitioner progressing with the work well within the project timeline, a show-cause notice was issued to him on 15.05.2025 seeking an explanation for non-completion of multiple projects and proposing demotion of his contractor licence. In response, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 28.05.2025, citing genuine reasons, including an incident where one of his firm's engineers was abducted by naxalites during the execution of work. Nevertheless, the Respondent No. 2, without due application of mind and overlooking the admissible completion date of 31.10.2025, issued a demotion order dated 14.07.2025, reducing the petitioner’s contractor licence from Class 'A' to Class 'B'. Thereafter, an appeal against the said demotion order was filed by the petitioner, which is still pending before the competent authority. According to him though the appeal was heard and issued notices to the opposite party, but till today the final order has not been passed. The petitioner contends that there was no default on his part and that the demotion order is arbitrary, 4 especially when the respondents themselves had acknowledged the reasons for delay. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the competent authority and the same will be decided within stipulated time. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, as the appeal against the order has already been filed before the respondent No. 2 on 17.07.2025 and it appear that notice was also issued and the appeal has also been heard but no final orders have been passed, the authority concerned is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 7. With the aforesaid directed, the petition stands disposed off. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law if aggrieved by the order passed. - Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti