1 2025:CGHC:6745 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 792 of 2025 1 - M/s Varsha Constructions A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At Millennium Plaza, Ii, Floor 25-26, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Partner Shri Barun Jain, Aged About 39 Years S/o Shri Kamal Chand Jain, R/o Barun Kunj, House No. 736, Opposite Laxmi Narayan Temple, Avanti Vihar, Sector - 2 Extension, Telibandha, Raipur - 492001, District Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, First Floor, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Through The Registrar, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) 3 - The Vice Chancellor Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Registrar Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 5 - The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Kamdhenu Vishwavidyalaya Durg, District Durg (C.G.) Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.02.07 10:24:05 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Shukla, Advocate through VC For Resp. no.1 : Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, PL For Resp. no. 2 & 5: Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 06/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 18/11/2024 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.4/ Executive Engineer, whereby, the Executive Engineer has forfeited the security amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to the work order dated 15/02/2017 for construction of Research Tower Building. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18/11/2024 (Annexure-P/1) is a non-speaking and unreasoned order and the same has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice and even without issuing a show cause notice and without considering the explanation of the petitioner 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/University submits that there is reference of several financial letters in the impugned order itself and hence, it cannot said that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuing of the impugned order. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 18/11/2024 (Annexure-P/1). 5. From perusal of the impugned order dated 18/11/2024, it appears that the respondent No.5 has passed the order of forfeiture of 3 security deposit without issuing any show cause notice and without considering the explanation of the petitioner, and as such the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice, which is a non-speaking and unreasoned order. Hence, the order dated 18/11/2024 (Annexure- P/1) is quashed. 6. The Respondents is at liberty to pass fresh order by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law by observing principles of natural justice. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul