1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 821 of 2023 1 - M/s. Rakhee Video Films Baijnathpara Raipur Through Its Proprietor Ajay Singh Yadu S/o Late Madhav Prashad Yadu, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Baijnathpara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Election Commission Of India Through The Chief Electoral Office, Shashtri Chowk Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Election Officer Cum Collector, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy District Election Officer Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. U. N. S. Deo, Advocate For State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate and Mr. Siddharth Ojha, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 It is prayed that Hon'ble the Court be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to adjudicate and dispose the instant petition, in favour of the petitioner firm, with strict directions to the respondent no. 2 and 3 to immediately pay up/disburse the undisputed amount of Rs. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 51,27,808/- to the petitioner firm upon having successfully and satisfactorily completed work of NIT alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum for the unwanted delay caused. 10.3 Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the instant case, in the interests of justice, including the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner firm.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner firm participated in a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) issued by the office of respondent No. 3 on 13.12.2022 for carrying out videography work in connection with the Khairagarh Assembly by-election. Upon being declared the successful bidder in the tender process, the petitioner was awarded several work orders between 12.03.2022 and 29.04.2022. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT, and under the supervision of officers of respondent No. 3 and 4, the petitioner successfully completed the assigned videography work using more than 1500 cameras along with supporting staff. Following the completion of the work, the District Election Officer issued a certificate confirming satisfaction with the performance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a final bill amounting to Rs. 51,27,808/-, which was duly verified and recommended for payment by the concerned authority. Subsequently, the District Election Officer (respondent No. 3) corresponded with the office of respondent No. 2 regarding the disbursement of the said amount. However, despite repeated requests and representations, the payment has not been released since 09.06.2022, without any justification or reason being communicated to the petitioner. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant petition has been preferred seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to release the undisputed amount of Rs. 51,27,808/- due towards the petitioner firm for the satisfactory completion of the contractual work under the concerned NIT. It is submitted that the conduct of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is wholly arbitrary, unjustified, and violative of settled principles of law. The petitioner has successfully and satisfactorily executed the work, as acknowledged in the relevant records and not disputed by the respondents. Yet, the due payment has been withheld without assigning any lawful reason or passing any formal order, which renders such action illegal, unsustainable and contrary to principles of fair play and natural justice. The withholding of payment, despite the admitted liability, is a classic case of administrative inaction and high- handedness. The failure of respondents to release the undisputed amount is a violation of contractual obligations and is a clear breach of trust placed in public authorities to act fairly and reasonably. It is further submitted that such prolonged delay without justification is not only prejudicial to the financial and commercial interests of the petitioner firm, but also contrary to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates non-arbitrariness in state action. The rule of law requires that public authorities discharge their duties in a transparent, accountable, and lawful manner, and the present conduct falls short of that standard. The petitioner firm is being subjected to grave hardship and injustice, despite having fulfilled all its obligations under the contract. There exists no lawful excuse or explanation for withholding the payment, which clearly shows mala fide inaction on the part of respondents No. 2 and 3. This not only violates the right of the 4 petitioner to be treated fairly but also creates an undesirable precedent of disregard for lawful contractual dues. Petitioner has submitted many representations / notices for demand on 28.09.2022, 30.09.2022 & 04.11.2022 requesting the authority for finalizing of payment of Rs. 51,27,808/- which has illegally and deliberately withheld by the office of respondent No. 2 and 3 which are also pending till date. 4. Learned State counsel submits that the present petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and deserves dismissal at the threshold. While it is true that a work order was issued in favour of the petitioner and the bill raised has been verified and forwarded to respondent No. 2 for budget allocation, the payment has not been made solely due to the non-allocation of funds by respondent No. 2. respondent No. 3 acted strictly under the directions of the Election Commission of India and in accordance with the applicable procurement rules. Since the financial responsibility lies entirely with respondent No. 2, respondent No. 3 cannot be held liable for the claimed amount. The petition, therefore, suffers from misjoinder of parties and lacks merit, and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has neither issued the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) nor awarded any work to the petitioner. The said NIT was issued solely by the Office of the Collector, Rajnandgaon, under the signature of the Deputy District Election Officer, without any prior approval or authorization from respondent No. 2. Further, respondent No. 2 had specifically allocated funds only for the purchase of video cameras as per its order dated 13.01.2022, and not for engaging third-party services through tenders. The action of District Election Officer in issuing work orders and 5 subsequently requesting budgetary allocation of Rs. 51,27,808/- is in violation of the said directions and is wholly unauthorized. respondent No. 2 denies any liability towards the claims made by the petitioner and disputes all averments made against it in the writ petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 7. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 (District Election Officer) has admitted to issuing the work order and verifying the bill for Rs. 51,27,808/-, and further that a request was made to respondent No. 2 (Chief Electoral Officer) for budgetary allocation. However, it is contended that payment could not be made due to non-allocation of funds. 8. Considering the respective submissions and the fact that the petitioner has executed the assigned work under official supervision and the bill has been duly verified by the competent authority, this Court is of the opinion that the matter involves disputed factual aspects regarding interdepartmental liability and financial sanction, which are best resolved at the administrative level in accordance with law and relevant guidelines. 9. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider and take a reasoned decision on the pending representations submitted by petitioner, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. If, upon such consideration, it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the amount claimed or any part thereof, the undisputed amount shall 6 be released to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 11. In the event of failure to comply with the aforesaid timelines, the amount found due and payable shall carry simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period till the date of actual payment. 12. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate legal remedy in accordance with law, in case of non- compliance or adverse decision. 13. With this observation and decision, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE