1 2025:CGHC:59119-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2116 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Devendra Aged About 55 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Hardi Bazar, Korba District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Public Health Engineering Department, Indrawati Bhavan Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Bilaspur Zone District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission, Public Health Department, Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Executive Engineer And Member Secretary District Water And Sanitation Mission, Public Health Department, District - Gaurella- Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering Section, Gaurella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.12.06 11:16:25 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05 .12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Topilal Bareth, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioners as the impugned communication dated 19.02.2024 has not been communicated to the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction and quashed the impugned communication dated 19.02.2024 (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/ direction and direct the respondent No. 4 to 6 to release the entire pending amount of work completed by the petitioner as per the work agreement along with interest. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 3 3. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Dinesh Kumar and has been undertaking various works relating to providing, laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of pipes, valve specials and all fittings, including all allied civil works, in individual households as well as Government institutions. Respondent No. 4 invited tender NIT No. 130/DWSM/2021 dated 16.08.2021 for providing, laying, jointing, interconnection, testing and commissioning of 63 mm to 75 mm HDPE Pipe (Class–6 Kg/cm², PE–100, PN–6), 65 mm GI Pipe, value specials and all fittings, along with allied civil works for Household Tap Connections (FHTC) in various villages under the Jal Jeevan Mission for Block Marwahi, District Gaurella-Pendra- Marwahi. The contractual period was six months, excluding the rainy season. 4. The petitioner participated in the tender process and his bid was accepted. A contract agreement (No. 108/DL/2021-22) was executed, which was communicated to the petitioner on 29.10.2021, for a contract value of ₹70,01,000/-. Upon substantial completion of work, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Executive Engineer on 04.08.2022 seeking a certificate of successful execution. However, the Executive Engineer orally informed that some work was pending, whereafter the petitioner applied for extension of time on 02.12.2022. The Assistant Engineer extended the completion period till 28.01.2023, recording that 80% work had already been completed after due verification. The petitioner completed the remaining work within 4 the extended period and sought release of the pending amount on 20.03.2023. The completion of work was further authenticated through letters issued by the respective Sarpanchs of the villages on 21.06.2023 and 03.07.2023, and through signatures of villagers in a work-completion register. 5. Thereafter, the Assistant Engineer issued a communication regarding defects noticed during inspection by the Chief Engineer on 05.02.2023 in three FHTCs at village Korja. The petitioner immediately rectified the work within the stipulated period and duly informed the authorities. The petitioner successfully executed the entire scope of work and the trial-run operations were conducted in the presence of departmental officials. Against the total value of ₹1,40,96,000/- (in two tenders), only ₹35,45,646/- was released (₹25,95,646/- on 28.08.2023 and ₹9,50,000/- on 31.03.2023). The petitioner submitted representations on 12.09.2023 and 25.09.2023 seeking release of the remaining dues, but to no avail. 6. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WPC No. 4668/2023. Vide order dated 30.10.2023, this Court directed respondents No. 4 and 5 to consider the petitioner’s representations within three months and release the undisputed dues, if payable. In compliance, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 08.11.2023. Subsequently, the respondents sought further clarifications. The petitioner replied on 23.01.2024 5 explaining that certain houses mentioned in the work order were not found at the site, and the available houses were accordingly provided with FHTCs. On 29.01.2024, the respondents sought more time for compliance, to which the petitioner responded on 05.02.2024 granting an additional 15 days. 7. On 15.02.2024, the respondents released only ₹6,35,039/- as undisputed amount, leaving a massive balance of ₹99,15,315/- unpaid. On 19.02.2024, the petitioner received an intimation of payment of ₹5,86,608/-, but no rejection of his representation or any impugned speaking order was communicated. Despite repeated representations, including the one dated 26.02.2024, the respondents did not release the legitimate dues. The petitioner was therefore compelled to file Contempt Petition No. 694/2024. Although the State counsel sought time on 01.07.2024, on the next date i.e., 05.07.2024, the respondents produced a communication dated 19.02.2024 merely to avoid contempt proceedings, despite there being no actual speaking order deciding the petitioner’s representation. The petitioner again wrote on 15.07.2024 seeking clarification regarding the so-called impugned communication, but received no reply. A detailed representation was thereafter submitted on 04.02.2025, yet no action has been taken. 8. The petitioner has completed the entire work, the same stands verified by local authorities and acknowledged by departmental 6 officials, and partial payments already released further affirm that the work is not disputed. However, withholding the remaining dues of ₹99,15,315/- is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, leaving him financially stranded without any fault on his part. Hence, this petition. 9. Mr. Topilal Bareth, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent authorities, being instrumentalities of the State, are expected to act fairly, reasonably and in consonance with the law of the land; however, in the present case, their conduct has been arbitrary and oppressive. The petitioner, who has been diligently and sincerely executing the works allotted under the District Water and Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division, cannot be subjected to the whims and fancies of the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner has repeatedly represented before the respondent authorities for release of the contractual payments, but his grievances have gone unheeded and the representations have fallen on deaf ears. The entire work was completed by the petitioner strictly as per the work agreement, and the same was duly certified by all concerned Sarpanches. During the execution phase, the departmental officers conducted inspections on various dates and no objection of any nature was raised. The petitioner has also preserved video recordings of the inspection proceedings, which clearly demonstrate that the work was accepted at the relevant time. 7 10. Mr. Bareth submits that despite completion of work, the then concerned officer delayed the payment and only released partial amounts of ₹9,50,000/- on 31.03.2023 and ₹25,95,646/- on 28.08.2023, assuring the petitioner that the balance payment would be cleared shortly. Significantly, no objection relating to the quality or completeness of work was raised by the respondents on or before these payment dates. For the first time, vide communication dated 20.07.2023, an objection was raised that casing pipes in certain FHTCs were damaged and taps were not installed. The petitioner immediately rectified the alleged defects within seven days and duly informed the Assistant Engineer. The rectified work was again inspected, and no deficiency was thereafter found. When the payment was still not released, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which culminated in an order directing the respondents to release the undisputed amount. Even after seeking additional time from this Court, the respondents never raised any issue regarding the ISI Standard 4984:1995 allegedly being obsolete since 2018. This objection is clearly an afterthought, introduced only to evade payment. 11. It is further submitted by Mr. Bareth that the petitioner even granted an additional 15 days’ time to the respondents; thereafter, vide letter dated 19.02.2024, the respondents informed that the undisputed amounts of ₹5,86,608/- and ₹1,30,122/- had been released. However, the respondents did not communicate any 8 order rejecting the petitioner’s representation or detailing any alleged defects. Left with no option due to continued non- compliance, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, wherein the respondents produced a communication dated 19.02.2024 claiming to have disposed of the petitioner’s representation. In fact, no such speaking or reasoned order was ever passed, and a document bearing an old date was generated solely to avoid contempt proceedings. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated 15.07.2024 disputing the said communication, but no action was taken. Even subsequent detailed representations, including that dated 04.02.2025, failed to elicit any response. Despite the work having been fully completed, inspected and verified by the departmental authorities supported by video evidence, the respondents have arbitrarily withheld the petitioner’s lawful dues. 12. Mr. Bareth contends that such conduct of the respondents amounts to blatant arbitrariness and violates the petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner has been deprived of payments legitimately due to him. Owing to such unlawful withholding, the petitioner is unable to repay loan amounts taken for execution of the project and is undergoing severe financial and mental hardship. The petitioner has been consistently following up through multiple representations, but the respondent authorities have shown no inclination to discharge their statutory and 9 contractual obligations. The petitioner, therefore, respectfully prays for grant of appropriate reliefs as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, and accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 13. On the other hand, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and contends that the allegations of arbitrariness and unfair treatment are misconceived. The payments released to the petitioner were in accordance with the work found satisfactory at the relevant stages, whereas subsequent inspections revealed deficiencies, including damaged casing pipes, incomplete fixtures, and non-compliance with updated technical standards. 14. It is submitted by Mr. Baghel that earlier partial payments do not imply acceptance of the entire work, and the department is entitled to ensure full compliance before releasing remaining amounts. The communication dated 19.02.2024 was issued after due consideration and clarifies the position of the department regarding the disputed sums. The petitioner’s claim that it was issued merely to avoid contempt proceedings is baseless. 15. Mr. Baghel further submits that the petitioner has no vested right to demand release of disputed amounts without rectifying the deficiencies identified. The actions of the respondents have been in accordance with law and public accountability requirements. In 10 view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material available on record. 17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record, it transpires that the petitioner was awarded contracts for execution of works under the District Water and Sanitation Mission, Public Health Engineering Division. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has completed a substantial portion of the work and received partial payments against the contractual amounts. The petitioner claims that the respondents have arbitrarily withheld the balance payments despite completion of work and due certification by local authorities. 18. However, the Court also observes that the respondents, in their official capacity, have raised objections regarding certain deficiencies, including damaged casing pipes, incomplete fixtures, and compliance with updated technical standards. These objections were communicated to the petitioner following due inspections conducted by departmental officers. The respondents, in their administrative capacity, are entrusted with ensuring quality control and compliance with technical specifications, and the Court cannot lightly interfere with such discretion exercised in good faith, unless shown to be mala fide or wholly arbitrary. 11 19. It is further reflected that the petitioner was given opportunities to rectify the alleged defects, which he did to the satisfaction of the departmental authorities. Partial payments released to the petitioner further indicate that the respondents did not deny the work outright but acted to ensure compliance with quality and procedural requirements. The communication dated 19.02.2024 clarifying the payment of undisputed amounts cannot be construed as an arbitrary action; it reflects the department’s position on amounts that were legitimately payable at that stage. 20. The Court finds that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the respondents acted in a manner that is arbitrary, oppressive, or violative of any fundamental right. While the petitioner may have been aggrieved due to delayed payments, such administrative delays, when coupled with genuine technical objections, do not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is not intended to function as a substitute for contractual or administrative remedies, especially where the authorities have acted within the scope of their duties and in accordance with procedural and technical requirements. 21. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition does not merit intervention and is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu