1 2025:CGHC:20789-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2104 of 2025 1 - Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Office At Ludeg, Tehsil- Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. Through Its Sole Proprietor Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal S/o Late Shri Rajendra Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 53 Years, R/o A/203, Om City, Station Road Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Raipur, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer-In-Chief Public Works Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Capitol Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer C.G. P.W.D Bridge Construction Zone Raipur, Nirman Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Capitol Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Superintending Engineer C.G. P.W.D. Bridge Construction Circle Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Executive Engineer C.G. P.W.D. Bridge Construction Division Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 6 - Sub-Divisional Officer P.W.D. Bridge Construction Sub-Division No. 2, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshwardhan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Prafull N.Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06/05/2025 Heard Mr. Harshwardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prafull N.Bharat, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/ respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “10.1 that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner available in the office of the respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure P/10) issued by the respondent No.5 and declare the same to be illegal and nonest and void ab initio in the eyes of law. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to take appropriate 3 decision in respect of the Extension of Time of the contract of the petitioner. 10.4. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to make payment of the pending bills of the petitioner at the earliest without any further delay. 10.5 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case including cost of the petition to the petitioner.” 3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the illegality, nonest, unreasonable, high handed and malafide order dated 05.04.2025 issued by the respondent No.5-Executive Engineer C.G.P.W.D. Bridge Construction Division Raigarh whereby, the case of the petitioner is pending consideration for grant of extension of time with the higher authorities and the contract of the petitioner has been terminated. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein, is a sole proprietorship firm, executing various contracts with the government bodies as also with the Public Works Department and is duly registered as A-class Contractor. The petitioner specializes in bridge construction work and has been awarded a contract for “Construction of HL Bridge I/c. Approach Road, Across Kurkut River on Tendumundi Beharamuda Road”. A work order dated 6.11.2022 was issued by the respondent- department and agreement was executed between them. The said work was to be completed within 14 months as per the agreement and the agreemental value was Rs. 6.99 crores. Soon after the execution of the agreement, the petitioner herein commenced the work of construction of 4 bridge. At the initial stage itself, on account of Covid-19 Pandemic. v the work at the site could not start. Since inception, the respondent was not having the land in its possession and therefore for want of acquisition of private land, the work got affected severely and delayed. Apart from the this, the basic drawing and design of the bridge as tendered in the tender documents was faulty and was not as required and it was substantially changed due to which the work got hampered and the petitioner continued the work. Regarding the genuine difficulty being faced by the petitioner, vide letter dated 16.10.2022 the respondent No.4 granted extension of time to the petitioner from 06.02.2022 to 30.10.2022 without penalty. However, problems continued and the petitioner proceeded ahead with the work and for the second time extension was granted to the petitioner vide letter dated 03.04.2023 by the respondent No.4-Superintending Engineer, CGPWD, Bridge Construction Circle, Raigarh and finally the land acquisition award was passed on 07.08.2023 and thereafter issuance of disbursement of compensation and taking over possession subsisted which further delayed the work. Apart from the delay, respondents were indifferent towards payment of bills of the petitioner while executing the contract on account of which also, the work got hampered. 5. After the extension for second time, the contract of the petitioner got expired on 30.06.2023 however, on account of non availability of drawings and land acquisition, the matter remained pending. The Executive Engineer by its letter dated 16.05.2024 to the consultant pointed the defective design and thereafter the drawings were finally approved on 28.11.2024 by the respondent No.3-Chief Engineer, CGPWD, Bridge Construction Zone, Raipur. The petitioner then applied 5 for extension of time by way of its application dated 10.01.2025 to which the respondent No.5-Executive Engineer, CGPWD, Bridge Construction Division, Raigarh vide it letter dated 15.01.2025 had sought for the comments from the respondent No.6-SDO (PWD), Raigarh. The case of the petitioner was recommended by respondent No.5 & 6 (ie. Executive Engineer and Sub Divisional Officer, PWD) before the respondent No.4 for grant of extension of time for completion of the work and the matter remained pending. Thereafter, a notice dated 28.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.5-Executive Engineer for initiating action under the terms of the Contract executed alleging unjustified non- performance. Another notice dated 03.03.2025 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.5. In the notice itself, it was pointed out that the petitioner had completed 85% of the work. Meanwhile, the authorities seized of the matters regarding extension of time of the contract and the respondent No.4 vide its notice dated 27.03.2025 has issued letter for hearing on the application for extension of time on 02.04.2025 before the respondent No.4 and after appraising the respondent No.4 about the circumstances, prayed for grant of suitable extension of time in order to complete the work. The matter was closed by the respondent No.4 for passing appropriate order and till date no order has been issued. 6. Vide impugned order dated 05.04.2025, the respondent No.5- Executive Engineer, CG PWD acting in high handed haste, illegal and non-est manner had terminated the contract of the petitioner on false pretext in utter contravention to the provisions of the contract and the settled principles of law. The order of termination itself points out that payment of about 20 lacs of the petitioner has been pending since long 6 and at this juncture, the respondents are to pay about 70 lacs to the petitioner in respect of the ongoing works. The respondent No.5 not only terminated the contract of the petitioner but had also directed for forfeiture of the security deposit of the petitioner and recovery of compensation @ 10% of the value of balance work. The respondent without ascertaining the actual damages had passed the order of recovery against the petitioner. 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and highhanded in nature and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner enshrined under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He submits that the respondents are obligated to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner and to that the actions of the respondents are contrary to the settled principles of law and the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that when the terms and conditions of the contract, the contract of the petitioner is pending consideration for grant of suitable time extension which was recommended by respondent No.5 Executive Engineer, CGPWD Bridge Construction Division, Raigarh and 6 Sub divisional Officer, PWD, Brdige construction, Raigarh themselves, then the action of terminating the contract in the meanwhile is absolutely unjustified, illegal and non- est in the eyes of law. There was no delay on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner has executed more than 85% work against all odds even then the impugned order has been passed by the respondent No.5 Executive Engineer CG PWD, Bridge Construction, Raigarh without any factual basis. He submits that as per the own records of the respondents, they did not had the required land as well as the basis 7 designing of the bridge was faulty which required change and which was approved only on 24.11.2024 therefore it is apparent that the termination of contract is without any basis. He further submits that the bills of about Rs. 70 lacs has not yet been paid to the petitioner by the respondent No.5. He submits that it is absolutely unjustified and contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract to expect from the petitioner to work without payment of regular bills. The show cause notice as well as the impugned order has not been issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and deserved to be set aside. Vide impugned order, the respondent No.5 -Execurive Engineer (CGPWD) had directed for encashment of securities of the petitioner and recovery of compensation @10% without any basis which is contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the respondents have not ascertained the dues and liability which is liable to be recovered from the petitioner and instead proceeded with the extreme step of encashment of securities bank guarantees of the petition which is liable to be set aside. The very fact that the respondent himself have directed for a joint inspection on 16.04.2025 clearly points out the state of affairs and that the impugned order and the action proposed are without any proper reasonable basis. He therefore submits that the order dated 05.04.2025 may be quashed and set aside and appropriate decision in respect of extension of time of the contract may be taken in respect of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Bharat, learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that in compliance of the order dated 01.05.2025, the Secretary, Public Works Department, State of Chahttisgarh, Raipur was directed to file his personal affidavit calling upon to hold an enquiry as to how 8 theNIT period was extended by the Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department,Bridge Construction Circle, Raigarh on 22.04.2025 on the application filed by the petitioner whereas the entire work order has been cancelled by the Executive Engineer, PWD, Bridge Construction Division, Raigarh on 05,04.2025 which is under challenge. 9. In the affidavit, it has been submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the concerned Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Construction Circle, Raigarh District Raigarh seeking explanation as to how the time was extended when on 05.04.2025 the entire agreement was cancelled by the concerned Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Bridge Construction Division Raigarh, District Raigarh. 10. The concerned Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Bridge Construction Circle, Raigarh has submitted that soon after 04.03.2025, when the concerned Executive Engineer PWD had submitted his memo along with recommendation, considering all the aspects without knowing that the work order has already been cancelled, extension order was issued by his office on 22.04.2025. The concerned Superintending engineer has expressed that he ought to have issued the extension in the given circumstances. Thereafter an explanation was also sought from the concerned Executive Engineer, PWD, Bridge Construction Divison Raigarh and he has submitted in his explanation that initially the period allowed to the petitioner to complete the work was only 14 months and several times, the extension was granted and when there was no progress in work from April 2023 for which letters were issued to the petitioner on regular intervals but the petitioner did not showed any 9 progress of work therefore invoking clause 1.14 of the condition of the contract, the agreement was cancelled. 11. 11. The explanation which has been given by the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, PWD, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, District Raipur with respect to the query which has been made by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2025 does not appeal to us as it goes to show that the things are not moving in a right direction as if there is no communication between the authorities within their office. But as the time has already been extended by the Superintending Engineer on the application of the petitioner, we deem it proper that the petitioner may be allowed to complete the work as has been extended by the respondent No.4 and the termination order dated 05.04.2025 is hereby set aside. 12. With the above observation, the petitions stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.09 10:49:12 +0530