1 2025:CGHC:20627-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2292 of 2025 Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o Late Piroji Mittal, aged about 59 years R/o H.I.G.-2, M.P. Nagar, Niharika, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principle Secretary, Ministry of Public Works Department (P.W.D), Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Engineer National Highway Zone, Public Works Department (P.W.D), Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Executive Engineer S.N.V.R.R. Division, Public Works Department (P.W.D), Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer National Highway Sub-Division, Public Works Department (P.W.D), Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - General Manager South Eastern Coalfields Limited (S.E.C.L.), Bishrampur Area, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Public Health Engineering, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Its Chief Engineer, Dagania, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 6/ State : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 0 6 . 05 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.7. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “a. issue a writ, order or direction, moreover in the nature of Mandamus, quashing of the order of Termination of contract that took place between the petitioner and respondent. The termination of contract dated 24.02.2025 b. issue the revival of the contract with the State of Chhattisgarh (Respondent), as the termination was arbitrary, unfair, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Delay in providing the Right of Way (ROW) was due to the failure of the Respondent to meet its contractual obligations. Therefore, the termination should be revoked and the contract should be reinstated. • Issue compensation for the losses incurred due to the delays caused by the Respondent, including: • The failure to provide 90% of the required ROW as per the EPC Agreement. • The failure to compensate the local 3 population, leading to obstruction in the execution of the project. • The delays caused by the lack of NOCs (No Objection Certificates) and delays in shifting electrical poles and pipelines which were the responsibility of the Respondent. • The petitioner claim damages for the time lost and the opportunity cost due to the delays caused by the State authorities. d. Issue extension of time for the completion of the project under the EPC Agreement, particularly when the delay is due to: • Non-availability of the ROW (Right of Way). • Non-compensation to the local population hindering the project's progress. • The petitioner seeks for time extension without penalizing the petitioner for the delays, as those delays were caused due to reasons outside of the petitioner's control. e. Issue mandatory direction to the Respondent to: Provide the remaining ROW of 300 meters for the construction of the project as specified in the agreement. • Grant the necessary approvals for the General Arrangement Drawings to allow the commencement of the construction work as per the agreement. • The petitioner can request the Court to ensure that the Government fulfills its obligations under the agreement in a timely manner to facilitate the construction work. 4 f. Issue termination as void and unlawful due to the Respondent's failure to meet contractual obligations. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 24.02.2025, whereby the petitioner’s tender for construction of 3-Lane ROB at NH L/C No. AB-72 on Surajpur to Ambikapur Road in Km. 357-370 of NH-78 (New NH-43) at Railway Chainage 1925/11-12 on Bishrampur to Ambikapur Railway Line Near Jainagar in Chhattisgarh, awarded to him on 28.07.2023 has been cancelled, is totally in contravention of the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that though total period for completion of construction work was given as 18 months, but due to non-availability of free construction site, even after continuous reminder given by the petitioner with regard to not being able to get right to way due to non-compensating by respondent to local populations, who are creating hindrance in progress of work, along with not being able to provide 90% of the right to way so that the petitioner can start the construction, the petitioner’s tender has been cancelled. He also submitted that plan & profile drawing approval was also not done and without shifting the major water pine line 9150 mm dia), the widening work of existing culvert cannot execute. By producing a copy of letter dated 12.04.2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD, NH, Sub-Division, Ambikapur, he submits that though the award for land acquisition for ROB construction in Jayanagar has been issued on 20.09.2023, but out of 88 landowners, till 12.04.2024 only 41 5 landowners were compensated and remaining 47 landowners were still to be compensated, as such delay has caused on the part of the respondent department in not providing the construction site, for which the petitioner is of no fault, therefore, he prays for quashment of the impugned termination order. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State opposed the aforesaid submission and drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-P/1 the impugned termination order submits that the tender has been awarded to the petitioner on 28.07.2023 and as per the contract agreement, the work was to be completed within 18 months, however, in complete disregard to the completion period, even after lapse of 16 months of the project duration, the work has not been completed. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to mobilize sufficient manpower and machineries at the site for timely execution of work, whereas the number of times the Authority requested the petitioner to expedite the work and mobilize required manpower and machineries at the site, only 16% work has been completed till 19.07.2024 and thereafter the work has been stopped by the petitioner, therefore, the impugned termination order has been passed. Further, drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-P/10 at page No. 40 of the writ petition, he submits that plea taken by the petitioner that without shifting the major pipe line (150 mm dia), the widening work of existing culvert cannot execute is totally baseless, because as per the petitioner himself this shifting work is not not 6 included in the original contract. He also pointed out that the petitioner has not filed the copy of the agreement, thus it is difficult to say that under the zone of consideration of the petitioner which type of works have been assigned. 5. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that though by way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the termination order of the contract awarded to him, but he has not filed the copy of agreement executed in his favour, as such, we not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed on this ground alone. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra