1 2025:CGHC:56269-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2779 of 2021 M/s Bajrang Traders, Through Pro. Prateek Singh S/o Shri S. B. Singh, Aged 34 Years, R/o Near Singh Pashu Aahar, Tanki Maroda, Bhiali, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Municipal Corporation, Durg Through Its Commissioner, H. Q. Infront Of Labour Court, Gaurav Path Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Durg, H. Q. Infront Of Labour Court, Gaurav Path Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Shri Rajesh Pandey The Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation Durg, H. Q. Infront Of Labour Court, Gaurav Path Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.11.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.19 17:20:30 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “a. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugried letter, dt. 26/06/2021 Annexure - P/1. b. May kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for making full payments of the bills submitted by the petitioner. Further may kindly be pleased to direct and determine the appropriate compensation to the petitioner for non payment of bills within reasonable period. c. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit and proper with cost of petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to a tender notice issued by the respondents, the petitioner was selected for carrying out the works relating to cleaning and maintenance of sewer lines within various areas of Durg City as well as construction and maintenance of concrete roads and other allied civil works under the Municipal Corporation, Durg. Upon fulfillment of the requisite formalities, including submission of FDRs and execution of the agreement, the respondents issued 16 different work orders to the petitioner assigning multiple tasks such as cement road maintenance, sewer maintenance and sewer construction. During the execution of the allotted works, respondent No.3 issued several notices alleging that the works were not satisfactory 3 or were incomplete. The petitioner promptly submitted replies to all such notices, clarified the difficulties faced during execution and assured completion of works strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. After completion of the works, which were duly inspected by the concerned authorities, ward members and local residents, the petitioner submitted the bills for payment, however, the respondents failed to release the payable amounts. Aggrieved by the non-payment, the petitioner approached this Court, whereupon the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation regarding the payment of bills. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner communicated the Court’s order and sent reminder letters, in response to which respondent No.3 directed subordinate officials to submit reports and also called upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents, which the petitioner duly supplied on 13/04/2021. Despite the petitioner’s cooperation and repeated compliance, the bills were still not paid, compelling the petitioner to file a contempt petition. Upon learning of the contempt proceedings, the respondents abruptly issued the impugned communication dated 26/06/2021, wherein payment against most of the 16 work orders and 3 additional works was denied on vague grounds of unsatisfactory work, partial payment was made without justification, and for some works payment was denied on the pretext that relevant files were lost. The said action is ex facie arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to the record, leading to wrongful denial of legitimate dues. Hence, the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned 4 action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the governing legal provisions, and therefore bad in law. It is submitted that the petitioner has honestly executed and completed all the allotted works by deploying a large number of labourers, tractor– trolleys and heavy machinery including Poclain machines, and has incurred substantial expenditure for completion of the works, which included cleaning of major sewer lines, an inherently difficult and labour- intensive task. The bills raised by the petitioner are genuine, duly supported by records, and the only reason for withholding the payments is the petitioner’s refusal to succumb to the illegal and extraneous demands of certain officials. The petitioner was assigned 16 different works and 3 additional works relating to sewer cleaning, cement-road maintenance, sewer maintenance and sewer construction within the Municipal Corporation area, and all these works were duly inspected and physically verified by the authorities, local residents and ward members, after which no objection was ever raised at the time of bill submission. It is contended that despite the petitioner’s compliance and despite the absence of any valid reason, the respondents have issued the impugned letter dated 26/06/2021 with clear mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, thereby denying legitimate payments to the petitioner. The conduct of the respondents is not only arbitrary and discriminatory but also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and their failure to process and release the bills within a reasonable time entitles the petitioner to appropriate compensation as may be determined by this Court. 5 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 submits that the petitioner was awarded various works for cleaning sewer and drainage lines at different locations within the Municipal Corporation area pursuant to an NIT, and work orders dated 13–14.05.2019 were issued accordingly. It is submitted that after issuance of the work orders, a formal contract agreement was duly executed between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation. As per the contractual terms, payment was to be released only upon satisfactory execution of work in accordance with the specifications of the Municipal Corporation. However, during the period of execution, the petitioner’s work was repeatedly found to be unsatisfactory, incomplete and not in conformity with the prescribed terms, compelling the Corporation to issue several show-cause notices dated 12.06.2019, 22.06.2019, 02.07.2019 and 04.07.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to remedy the deficiencies and did not complete the work as per contractual conditions, and therefore, after proper assessment and calculation, only the admissible payments were released by order dated 26.06.2021. The respondents contend that the present petition seeks release of full payments and compensation, which are purely matters of contractual dispute and cannot be adjudicated in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially where several disputed questions of fact arise. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing a civil suit for recovery of the alleged dues, and the present writ petition is not maintainable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the 6 submissions advanced by the respective counsel. 7. Upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that the dispute raised in the present petition arises purely out of contractual obligations between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation. The materials placed on record reveal that the petitioner’s work was repeatedly found to be unsatisfactory, leading to issuance of several show-cause notices, and the respondents thereafter released only such payment as was found admissible upon verification. The petitioner’s claim for release of full contractual dues as well as compensation involves examination of disputed questions of fact relating to execution and quality of work, measurement, compliance of terms, and extent of liability issues which necessarily require evidence and cannot be adjudicated in the limited writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of instituting a civil suit for recovery of the alleged outstanding amounts. In view of the above factual and legal position, no case is made out for interference in the impugned action of the respondents. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet