1 2025:CGHC:52114-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5429 of 2025 Prakash Chandra Rai S/o Shri Gaya Rai Aged About 55 Years R/o Nawapara, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2. Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nava, Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Engineer (Central Tender Cell) Office Of The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 4. Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.10.2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.10.28 12:02:50 +0530 2 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “ I. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. II. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure-P/1) in respect of Clause 2 of General Rules and Directions. III. Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts, as pleaded by the petitioner, are that the Respondent No. 3 – Office of the Engineer-in-Chief (Central Tender Cell), Public Works Department, invited a tender on behalf of the Governor of Chhattisgarh in Form “A” for the work of construction of the main road from Buldega to Rajama via Khadamacha, having a total length of 10.40 km (actual length 10.375 km), amounting to 1678.04 lakhs. The tender notice ₹ was published on 17.03.2021, with bid submission commencing from 19.03.2021 and closing on 08.04.2021, while the last date for submission of physical documents was 12.04.2021, and the bid opening was scheduled on 15.04.2021. The petitioner participated in the said tender, and thereafter, a work order dated 09.11.2021 was issued in its favour for the construction of 3 the main road from Buldega to Rajama via Khadamacha (length 10.40 km) and Tumla to Golidik Road (length 3.22 km). The petitioner commenced the work as per the contract; however, it was found that approximately 2.800 km of the project area falls within a forest region. Despite the absence of forest clearance, the tender had been issued for the entire stretch. The petitioner informed the Executive Engineer, PWD, Patthalgaon, through various letters dated 15.01.2022, 03.03.2022, and 16.03.2022, that the Forest Officer was not permitting construction in the forest area. Subsequently, by letter dated 12.01.2023, the petitioner again brought to the notice of the Executive Engineer that forest clearance had not been granted, electricity poles had not been shifted, land acquisition compensation had not been disbursed, and local villagers were obstructing the construction work. The petitioner, vide letter dated 06.02.2023, sought an extension of time for completion of the work, citing these genuine difficulties. It is stated that the Executive Engineer, on 13.02.2023, acknowledged receipt of the petitioner’s request and also deposited an amount of 4,34,000/- on 09.02.2023 for ₹ shifting of a hand pump located within the construction area. Further, an amount of 7,99,200/- was deposited before the ₹ Forest Department on 07.02.2023 towards obtaining the necessary “No Objection Certificate,” which was done much after the commencement of the contract work. It is also stated that as per forest rules, only construction up to a width of 4 4 meters was permissible, whereas the work executed exceeded that limit, leading to seizure of vehicles by the Forest Department. The petitioner has further submitted that under the contractual terms, delay compensation could be levied at the rate of 0.5% per week under Clause 2 of the agreement. The Executive Engineer extended the period of completion by 42 days (6 weeks), imposing compensation at 3% of the total contract value. However, according to the petitioner, the extension ought to have been granted under Clause 5 of the General Rules and Directions, and not under Clause 2, as the delays were due to reasons beyond the petitioner’s control. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the tender issued by the Central Tender Cell, PWD, for construction of the main road from Buldega to Rajama via Khadamacha (10.40 km) and Tumla to Goledih (3.22 km), and that a work order dated 13.10.2021 was issued, followed by Agreement No. 78/2021-22. During execution, it was found that about 2.8 km of the road fell within forest land for which no forest clearance had been obtained. The petitioner had informed the Executive Engineer through letters dated 15.01.2022 and 03.03.2022, but despite repeated requests, the respondents failed to secure forest clearance or remove obstructions at the site. It was further submitted that the respondents had not provided site clearance before issuing the 5 contract, as electricity poles and hand pumps remained within the construction area and compensation for acquired land had not been paid, causing resistance from villagers. The petitioner also sought extension of time vide letter dated 06.02.2023, but the respondents granted only 42 days’ extension under Clause 2 of the General Rules and Directions, imposing 3% compensation, whereas the petitioner was entitled to extension under Clause 5 since the delay was due to circumstances beyond its control. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for appropriate relief and setting aside of the impugned action of the respondents. 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. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 6. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote arbitration clause of the tender document. It reads thus : ARBITRATION CLAUSE: Clause 28 Except as otherwise provided in this contract all question and dispute relating to the meaning of the specification, designs, drawings and instruction herein before mentioned as to thing 6 whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract designs, drawings, specification estimate, concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work, or a after the abandonment there of shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer for his decision, within a period of 30 (thirty) days of such an occurrence (s). There upon the Superintending Engineer shall give his written instructions and/or decisions, after hearing the contractor and Executive Engineer within a period of 15 (fifteen) days of such request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of parties. Upon receipt of written instructions or decisions, of Superintending Engineer the parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such instructions or decisions. If the Superintending Engineer fails to give his instruction or decisions in writing within a period of 15 (fifteen) days or mutually agreed time after being requested and/or, if the party (es) is/are aggrieved against the decision of the Superintending Engineer, the aggrieved party may within 30 days prefer an appeal to the Chief Engineer, who shall afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The, 7 Chief Engineer will give his decision within 30 (thirty) days, or such, mutually agreed period. If any party is not satisfied with the decision of the Chief Engineer he can file the petition for resolving the dispute through arbitration in the arbitration tribunal. A reference to Arbitration Tribunal shall be no ground for not continuing the work on the part of the Contractor. Payment as per original terms and condition of the agreement shall be continued by the Executive Engineer in accordance with clause 8 above. 7. On bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that in the subject tender process, there is arbitration clause. Clause 28 embedded in the contract, 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. 8. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution 8 should not ordinarily be exercised. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 remedy available under Clause 28 of the contract, if so advised. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti