1 2025:CGHC:56341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2264 of 2022 1 - Electricals Palace Through The Proprietor Bajrang Agrawal S/o Shri Ramniwas Agrawal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Maa Durga Ward High School Road Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration, Division Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Bagicha, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2/State : Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 19 /11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or of like nature to the Respondent No. 3 for releasing the amount of the petitioner in sum of Rs. 3,79,715/- with reasonable interest thereupon till the date of actual payment within the stipulated period. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 10.2 That, a command/direction may kindly be issued alternatively to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in an objective manner by a speaking order, in accordance with law within the stipulated time. 10.3 Any other relief which is deemed fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to supply orders issued by respondent No.3, petitioner supplied required electrical equipments/ articles to respondent No.3, which is not in dispute. However, when petitioners submitted bills for payment, respondent No.3 refused to release the payment on the ground of alleged non-deposit of tax towards house and shop etc. by petitioner. Petitioner submitted an application dated 7.10.2020 before respondent No.3 for release of bill amount enclosing no-dues certificate upto year 2025. He also submitted representation before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagicha and the Collector, District Jashpur, for redressal of his grievances. However, even after lapse of more than three years from supply of articles, payment is not being released in favour of petitioner. He submits that delay in payment of final bills is causing undue financial hardship to petitioner. Despite approaching the respondent authorities time and again, no heed was paid to the request of petitioner, hence, he prays that a direction be issued to respondents to respondent No.3 to take decision on the claim of petitioner within specified time. 3. Learned counsel for respondents would submit that as the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and only praying for a direction to respondents to take decision on his pending application/representation, he is having no objection in grant of such relief. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 3 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, has held as under:- “10. It is clear from the above observations of this Court in the said case, though a writ was not issued on the facts of that case, this Court has held that on a given set of facts if a State acts in an arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract, by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Court depending on facts of the said case is empowered to grant the relief. This judgment in K.N. Guruswamy V. State of Mysore [AIR 1954 SC 592 : (1955) 1 SCR 305] was followed subsequently by this court in the case of D.F.O. v. Ram Sanehi Singh [(1971) 3 SCC 864] wherein this Court held (SCC p. 865, para4) “By that order he has deprived the respondent of a valuable right. We are unable to hold that merely because the source of the right which the respondent claims was initially in a contract, for obtaining relief against any arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of a public authority he must resort to a suit and not to a petition by way of a writ. In view of the judgment of this court in K.N. Guruswamy case [AIR 1954 SC 592 :(1955) 1 SCC 305] there can be no doubt that the petition was maintainable, even if the contract where the action challenged was of a public authority invested with statutory power.” 23. It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the above said requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent….” 4 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case, decision in case of ABL International (Supra), limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, which is not opposed by learned counsel for respondents, without commenting anything on merits of petitioner's claim, this writ petition is disposed of directing Respondent No. 3 to take decision on the claim of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of 02 months after verifying the facts and to disburse the undisputed amount to be paid to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey