1 / 3 2025:CGHC:53751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5705 of 2025 • Virendra Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shiv Gopal Gupta, Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Civil Court, Manendragarh, Dist. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 497442 ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Public Works Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 492002 2. Engineer-In-Chief, PWD Nirman Bhawan, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 492002 3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Manendragarh Division District Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) 497442 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mrs. Astha Shukla, Adv. with Mr. Varun Vats Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 04/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. 10.1 Issue appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 3 to release an amount of INR 72,10,488 (Rupees Seventy-Two Lakh Ten Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty Eight only) with 12% per annum interest to petitioner. 10.2 Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case.” PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner provided tent services (tents, chairs, canopy etc.) to the office of Respondent No. 3/ Executive Engineer for various government functions from January 2023 to October 2023. The said services provided by petitioner was duly executed as directed by the authorities time to time which was verified by respondent authorities. Petitioner also submitted bills towards tent services amounting in total Rs. 93,45,058, however, respondents till date have not disbursed the same. It is also pointed out that in the bills which are submitted by petitioner, concerned authority has also certified the work done by petitioner and its value and have never disputed either the bill amount or the quality of work executed. Petitioner thereafter submitted representations dated 30.05.2025 and 14.07.2025, copy of which are filed as Annexure P-1, however, no steps have been taken in this regard. A legal notice was also sent to the respondent authorities on 08.09.2025, pursuant to which partial short payments of Bills No. 12 and Bill No. 93 therein was made on 12.09.2025. Aggrieved by which, petitioner submitted another representation dated 11.10.2025 but no further steps have been taken. He placed reliance upon the decision in case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 in support of his contention. She also submits that as petitioner is facing financial crises, petitioner may be permitted to submit fresh representation before respondents and a direction be issued to respondents authorities to consider the claim of petitioner at the earliest. 3. Learned counsel for respondents-State would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking permission of this Court to submit fresh representation to be decided by respondents authorities in accordance with law, he is having no objection. 4. I have heard learned cousnel for the parites. 3 / 3 5. Considering the nature of grievance raised by petitioner and the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that bills submitted by petitioner for executing the work, is also certified by the concerned officer of the respondents department and total amount of the bills submitted by petitioner is not paid to him, without entering into merits on the claim of petitioner, I find it appropriate to dispose off this petition at this stage permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation before the respondents raising all his grievances as raised in this petition and in turn the concerned respondents shall consider and decide the representation in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision in case of ABL International Ltd. (supra). It is expected from the respondents that if the respondent No.3 comes to conclusion after due verification of the facts that petitioner has already executed the work then the respondents authorities shall disburse the undisputed amount to petitioner at the earliest. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE