1 2025:CGHC:58542-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1124 of 2025 Sharda Offset Printers Pvt Ltd. Through Its Director Rahul Uppal S/o Late Shri A.K. Uppal, Aged About 40 Years, Registered Office At Sejbahar Road, Village- Dunda, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Samagra Shiksha, 2nd Floor Integrated Education Building, Pensionbada, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Directorate, Printing And Stationery Department, Block No. 1, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Directorate, Printing And Stationary Department, Block No.1, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1120 of 2025 M/s Techno Prints Through Its Proprietor Vikas Kapoor S/o Late R.S. Kapoor, Aged About 57 Years, Registered Office At Behind Banjari Mata Mandir, Near Heera Steel, Rawabhata, Industrial Area, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.04 10:54:25 +0530 2 Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director Samagra Shiksha, 2nd Floor Integrated Education Building, Pensionbada, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director Directorate, Printing And Stationery Department, Block No. 1, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director Directorate, Printing And Stationary Department, Block No. 1, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 1128 of 2025 M/s Shriram Printers And Stationers Its Through Proprietor Shrikant Agrawal, S/o P.K. Agrawal, R/o B-153 Swarnbhoomi Colony Near Ambuja Mall Raipur (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Managing Director, Samagra Shiksha, 2nd Floor Integrated Education Building, Pensionbada, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director, Directorate, Printing And Stationery Department, Block No. 1, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 4 - Joint Director, Directorate, Printing And Stationery Department, Block No. 1, 2nd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrejal Gupta on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Mr. Himanshu Sinha, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shrejal Gupta on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla and Mr. Himanshu Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State and Mr. Animesh Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present petitions have been filed against the order dated 20.06.2022 bearing No. 911/ SS / Pedagogy / LEP /2022-23, No. 913/ SS/ Pedagogy / LEP/2022-23 and No.915/SS/Pedagogy/LEP/2022-23, whereby the representations made by the petitioner herein for making balance payment has been rejected by respondent No.2. 3. Brief facts of the case are that all the petitioners—Sharda Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Techno Prints and M/s Shriram Printers & Stationers were issued work orders dated 02.11.2020 by Respondent No.3, the Printing and Stationery Department, for printing educational 4 material under the Learning Enhancement Programme at the Government-approved rates. Due to subsequent changes in the quantity and specifications of the printing material, amended work orders were issued to each of the petitioners on 07.12.2020 by Respondent No.4, the Joint Director. Upon completion of the assigned printing work, all petitioners submitted their respective bills, which were duly scrutinized and verified by the Technical Committee of the Printing and Stationery Department and thereafter forwarded to Respondent No.2 for processing and release of payment. However, in each case, respondent No.2 arbitrarily released only partial payment and withheld substantial amounts on the ground that payment would be made only at “competitive market rates” rather than the notified Government rates under which the work orders were issued. In the case of Sharda Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd., amounts of Rs.20,11,07,730/- and Rs.2,34,31,592/- were raised, of which only Rs.12,55,29,278/- and Rs.2,00,08,693/- were paid, leaving a balance of Rs.7,90,01,351/-. In the case of M/s Techno Prints, against the bill of Rs.19,44,63,386/-, only Rs.13,86,46,965/- was paid, leaving a balance of Rs.5,58,16,421/-. Similarly, in the case of M/s Shriram Printers & Stationers, against the billed amount of Rs.22,40,82,603/-, only Rs.15,24,18,817/- was released, leaving a balance of Rs.7,16,63,786/-. Aggrieved by the withholding of their legitimate dues, all the petitioners had earlier approached this Hon’ble Court through WP(C) Nos. 1944/2022, 1935/2022 and 1912/2022 respectively, wherein this Hon’ble Court directed respondent No.2 to decide their pending representations dated 5 27.03.2021, 26.03.2021, 03.02.2022, 04.03.2022, 05.04.2022 and 14.03.2022 within the stipulated time. Pursuant to the said directions, respondent No.2, however, rejected each representation by separate but identical orders dated 20.06.2022 bearing Nos. 915/SS/Pedagogy/LEP/2022-23, 911/SS/Pedagogy/LEP/2022-23 and 913/SS/Pedagogy/LEP/2022-23, reiterating the stand of payment based on competitive market rates. It is these rejection orders, as well as the continued withholding of verified and undisputed dues, that have necessitated the filing of the present petitions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire action of the respondents in withholding the legitimate dues of the petitioners and rejecting their representations by identical orders dated 20.06.2022 is patently arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the very terms of the work orders. It is urged that the original work orders dated 02.11.2020, as well as the amended orders dated 07.12.2020, were issued at predetermined and duly notified Government rates, and the petitioners undertook and completed the entire printing work strictly on that basis. After full execution of the work and verification of the bills by the Technical Committee of the Printing and Stationery Department, respondent No.2 could not have introduced a new criterion of “competitive market rates” to unilaterally reduce payment. Counsel submits that the comparative chart relied upon by respondent No.2, based on supposed rates of Chhattisgarh Samvad and Chhattisgarh Pathya Pustak Nigam is wholly extraneous, arbitrary, and dehors the contract, as neither the tender nor the work orders ever contemplated 6 payment based on competitive rate comparison. It is emphasised that the petitioners were never informed of any such intention, nor was their consent ever sought, and therefore the respondents cannot alter contractual terms after the petitioners have completed the assignment. 5. Learned counsel further contends that the entire work was completed within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the respondents and no deficiency, shortcoming, or quality-related issue has ever been communicated to the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents’ reliance on internal letters dated 28.10.2020 and 05.12.2020, undisclosed to the petitioners and never forming part of the contractual documents to justify reduced payments is legally untenable and amounts to changing the rules of the game after it has begun. He further submits that the withholding of substantial amounts- Rs.7,90,01,351/-, Rs.5,58,16,421/- and Rs.7,16,63,786/- pertaining to the three petitioners respectively, without any allegation of breach or deficiency, violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and has caused severe financial hardship to the petitioners, who have taken bank loans and continue to bear heavy interest burdens. It is therefore urged that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the respondents be directed to release the full balance amount payable under the verified bills at the originally approved Government rates. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners have essentially prayed for release of the respective balance amounts, along with interest @18% per annum, but all three 7 petitions are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the very outset. It is contended that, in each case, a duly constituted Technical Committee comprising subject-matter experts was entrusted with scrutiny and verification of the bills, vouchers and supplied materials with respect to quantity, quality and the applicable Government rates. The Technical Committee undertook a detailed examination and, after completing the verification process, submitted its report, which was thereafter promptly forwarded to respondent No.2 for necessary action. It is further submitted that the answering respondents have finalized the bills strictly in accordance with the rates fixed by the Government, and their role was confined only to technical verification, which has been duly discharged without deviation. Learned State Counsel submits that since the work orders were placed by respondent No.2 in each of the three cases, the responsibility of releasing the payment lies exclusively with respondent No.2, and after forwarding the verified reports, no further obligation remains on the part of the answering respondents. It is therefore urged that as no cause of action survives against the answering respondents, the clubbed petitions, to the extent they are directed against them, are liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Samagra Shiksha, State Project Officer Raipur submits that in each of the petitions, the petitioners seek directions for release of an alleged balance amount over and above the payments already made for printing of study materials under the Learning Enhancement Programme (LEP). It is submitted that the petitioners admittedly executed printing work only 8 under the work orders issued by respondent No.4—the Directorate of Printing & Stationery Department with whom alone the petitioners are empanelled and contractually connected. The answering respondent has neither issued any tender nor concluded any contract nor placed any work order upon the petitioners. In absence of privity of contract, no legal or enforceable right exists against the answering respondent. More importantly, the entire claim raised in all the petitions is purely monetary, arising out of alleged non-payment of an alleged balance amount, which is essentially a disputed contractual claim involving calculation of rates, quantity variations and interpretation of contractual terms. It is well-settled that such disputes involving detailed evidence, accounting verification and adjudication of disputed facts cannot be decided in writ proceedings under Article 226, especially where there is no violation of statutory duty. The petitioners’ proper, efficacious and equally accessible remedy is to file a civil suit for recovery of the allegedly outstanding amount. In fact, the impugned order itself informed the petitioners to avail their alternative civil remedy, which the petitioners have chosen to bypass without justification. On this ground alone, all three petitions are liable to be rejected as not maintainable. 8. It is further submitted that the answering respondent has already made full and final payment strictly as per the lowest prevailing printing rates of Government agencies, pursuant to the policy directions issued in letters dated 28.10.2020, 28.11.2020, 05.12.2020 and 08.02.2021. The Technical Committee constituted for all three matters undertook verification of the bills, quantity and quality and, after comparative 9 assessment using rates obtained from Chhattisgarh Samvad and Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, the admissible amount— Rs.14,03,40,187/- was duly released on 31.03.2021. The petitioners’ demand for an additional amount in all three petitions is not only contrary to the mandatory “lowest-rate” condition governing LEP printing but also an issue requiring evidentiary proof, rate comparison and contractual interpretation, which cannot be examined in writ jurisdiction. It is further emphasized that all three petitions suffer from unexplained delay of nearly three years from the rejection order dated 20.06.2022, which independently bars the petitions under the doctrine of laches. Therefore, considering (i) absence of privity of contract, (ii) existence of a complete alternative civil remedy, (iii) disputed monetary claims requiring trial and evidence, (iv) full payment already made as per Government norms, and (v) gross delay, all three petitions are wholly devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 10. Upon careful examination of the pleadings, documents and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in all three connected petitions, this Court records the following findings. First, it is undisputed from the record that the work orders in question were issued exclusively by the Directorate of Printing & Stationery Department (Respondent No.4), and not by Respondent No.2/Samagra Shiksha. The petitioners have failed to produce any contract, correspondence or document to establish privity of contract with respondent No.2. 10 Consequently, no enforceable contractual or statutory obligation is shown to exist against respondent No.2 for release of any additional payment. Second, the claim raised by all the petitioners pertains solely to monetary recovery founded on alleged non-payment of the balance amount, which itself depends upon disputed factual elements such as rate applicability, comparative pricing with other government agencies, quantity variation, and quality evaluation. These matters inherently require evidence, accounting scrutiny and detailed factual adjudication, which cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction. Third, the petitioners have been expressly informed in the impugned orders that their proper remedy is to pursue a civil action for recovery, yet the petitioners have bypassed this efficacious and adequate remedy without justification. Fourth, the petitions suffer from unexplained and substantial delay, as the impugned rejection orders are dated 20.06.2022, whereas the present petitions have been instituted nearly three years later without any explanation for the delay. Lastly, the material placed on record clearly demonstrates that payment has already been made to all the petitioners strictly in accordance with the lowest prevailing government printing agency rates in compliance with the policy directions issued by respondent No.2 thus, no arbitrariness or violation of statutory duty is made out. 11. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the reliefs sought by the petitioners cannot be granted in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The claims pertain to disputed contractual payments, involve no statutory violation, and fall squarely 11 within the province of civil adjudication. The absence of privity of contract with respondent No.2, the existence of an alternative efficacious civil remedy, the presence of seriously disputed questions of fact, and the petitioners’ unexplained delay of nearly three years all operate as independent grounds to decline interference. Since the admissible payment has already been made as per the lowest government printing rates, and no legal infirmity is demonstrated in the rejection of the petitioners’ representations, this Court finds no merit in the petitions. Accordingly, all three writ petitions stand dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue their appropriate civil remedy in accordance with law, should they so choose. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet