1 2025:CGHC:58321-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6071 of 2025 Manoj Agrawal S/o Mahadevlal Agrawal Aged About 56 Years R/o 983, Bharat Mata Chowk, Near Ram Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Raipur, Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Old Police Headquarter, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Chief Project Engineer Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Old Police Headquarter, Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Old Police Headquarter, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. Deputy Engineer Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Old Police Headquarter, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Praveen Das & Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.12.03 10:39:25 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02.12.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “ 1. Hon'ble Court may be kind and gracious enough to call for the records of the case from the respondents. 2. Hon'ble Court may be kind be pleased to quash the impugned letter dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) and may pass an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities for release of the amount of security deposits of the petitioner by issuance of an appropriate writ or any other writ/writs, order/orders or direction/directions. 3. Any other relief/relief's which Hon'ble court may deem fit in the fact s and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. The brief facts, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned letter dated 01.09.2025, whereby the security deposit furnished by the petitioner in relation to the agreement dated 03.02.2018 for construction of the Auditorium at the Police Academy, Chandkhuri, Raipur (C.G.) has been forfeited. The said forfeiture has been made to adjust an alleged recovery arising out of an altogether different agreement dated 25.02.2022 for construction of the fortified police station at P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund. The petitioner submits that the agreement dated 25.02.2022 had earlier 3 been cancelled, and the cancellation order was challenged before this Court. After multiple rounds of litigation, the agreement dated 25.02.2022 presently remains in a stagnant and unsettled state. The petitioner therefore seeks quashment of the impugned letter dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) and issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to release the security deposit withheld under the agreement dated 03.02.2018. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned letter dated 01.09.2025 has been issued by the respondent authorities in a wholly arbitrary and illegal manner, without any basis in law or in the terms of the agreement. It is urged that the respondents have acted with mala fide intent in withholding and forfeiting the petitioner’s security deposit pertaining to the agreement dated 03.02.2018, despite there being no allegation, show-cause notice, or discrepancy ever pointed out with respect to the work executed under the said contract. Counsel further contends that the petitioner successfully completed the work on 31.03.2022 and was duly issued a work satisfaction certificate. It is argued that the adjustment of security deposit of one completed agreement towards purported recovery arising from an entirely separate agreement dated 25.02.2022, which itself has become the subject of prolonged litigation and remains unsettled is impermissible, unethical, arbitrary, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that such action reflects a high-handed approach on the part of the respondent authorities, who have 4 exceeded their contractual authority and attempted to enforce recovery beyond the terms governing the agreements. It is therefore prayed that the impugned letter be quashed and the petitioner’s security deposit be directed to be released. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions and submits that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and without availing the said remedy the petitioner straightaway approached this Court and hence the petition may be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 6. On bare perusal of the material available on record and submission made by the counsel, it has come to light that the subject tender process, there is arbitration clause, which provides a comprehensive and statutorily recognized dispute resolution, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an effective, adequate, and efficacious alternative remedy available. The petitioner cannot bypass the agreed contractual and statutory forum, particularly when the dispute pertains to contractual obligations and administrative decisions under a tender process. 7. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 5 8. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 9. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 10. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the arbitration clause, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti