1 2025:CGHC:56558 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6050 of 2025 1 - Maa Santoshi Tent House, Through Its Proprietor Santosh Sarkar S/o Yadunath Sarkar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Subhas Nagar, Bhagwanpur, School Para, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - Directorate, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Vikash Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 3 - Executive Engineer P W D, Division Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. 4 - Collector, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja C.G. 6 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 20 /11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents No. 2 & 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the bill amount of Rs. 29,43,440/- with interest of 12% per annum in favour of the petitioner. 10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner has already submitted representation before the Respondents No. 2 & 3 which is pending consideration and therefore, direction be issued to the concerned respondent to take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner claiming an amount of Rs. 29,43,440/-. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent/State submits that as the writ petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and is only seeking a direction to the respondents to take decision on the representation dated 20.05.2019 to the Respondent No. 5. However, he submits that the representation as submitted by the petitioner is of 06.05.2019, he further submits that the representation is submitted to the Respondents No. 5 & 6 for whom he is not representing. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 5. From perusal of the pleadings made in the application, it is appearing that the petitioner was directed to do the work of providing tent services during the ‘Atal Vikas Yatra’ of the Chief Minister between Chando to Nan Damali, however, as per submission of the counsel for the petitioner, the bills towards the word done was submitted, but till date, no payment has been made. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd, has held as under:- 3 “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 7. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for the respective parties and further considering the decision of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of ABL International (Supra), I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the Respondents No. 5 & 6 and in the event, petitioner submits representation, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of submission of the representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of the petitioner, it will be for the concerned respondents to take decision on its own merits. 8. With the aforesaid observation and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY