1 2026:CGHC:19794-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2096 of 2026 1 - M/s Amar Pratap Shitole Having its Registered Office 6/26, Ispat Nagar, Near Santoshi Durga Mandir, Risali, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.), Through Power of Attorney Holder Rajesh Kadam S/o Late Krishn Rao, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Budhapara, Behind S.S. Printers Raipur Tehsil Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Engineer-In-Chief Public Work Department, Nirman Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Engineer Public Work Department, (E/m) Sirpur Bhawan, Near Aakashwani Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector Jagdalpur District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Superintending Engineer (E and M) Public Works Department, Sirpur Bhawan, Near Aakashwani Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department (E/m), Sub Division Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.30 19:54:48 +0530 2 7 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department (E/m), Sub Division Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 8 - The Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department (E/m), Sub Division Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29-04-2026 1. Heard Mr. B.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate Geneal, appearing for the State. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seek for the following relief(s): “10.1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the legitimate and undisputed dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 14,50,318/- within a stipulated time frame; 10.2 Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 3. The facts as mentioned in the petition are that, the Petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the work of construction and civil supplies under the name and title of "M/s Amar Pratap Shitole", having its registered office at 6/26, Ispat Nagar, near Santoshi Durga Mandir, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), and is run and managed by its proprietor, Shri Amar Pratap Shitole. The petitioner firm is duly registered with the Public Works Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, as a Class "C" contractor and has been registered since 06.01.2016 and further also having the license of Electricity Work (Class- A) from Chief Electricity Inspector Government of Chhattisgarh. During the year 2022, the Respondents department issued various work and supply orders for installation of electrical equipment in Jagdalpur Division, which were duly executed by the Petitioner to the satisfaction of the Respondents and recorded in the Measurement Books. The total value of the work executed and materials supplied by the Petitioner amounts to Rs. 14,50,318/-, out of which Rs. 10,00,855/- pertained to work under a formal agreement and Rs. 4,49,463/- related to supply orders. In acknowledgment of the said liability, the Respondents issued three cheques covering the entire amount, which were also reflected in the Schedule of Credit Remittance published on the official website of the Public Works Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh. However, despite issuance of the said cheques, the same were subsequently cancelled on the ground of non-availability of funds, and the Petitioner has not received payment till date. Repeated oral and written representations made by the Petitioner have yielded no result, and the arbitrary inaction 4 of the Respondents has caused severe financial hardship, compelling the Petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has duly executed the work entrusted by the Respondent department in terms of the work orders and demand letters issued during the year 2022, and the same stands duly recorded and certified in the Measurement Books maintained by the Respondents. There is no dispute whatsoever regarding the execution, quality, or completion of the work. In fact, the liability of the Respondents stands unequivocally admitted, as evidenced by the issuance of cheques covering the entire amount as well as the reflection of the dues in the official Schedule of Credit Remittance. Once the work has been duly performed and accepted, the Respondents are under a legal obligation to release the payment, and any withholding thereof is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. It is further submitted that the subsequent recall and cancellation of the cheques issued in favour of the Petitioner, on the purported ground of non-availability of funds, is ex facie illegal and untenable in law. It is a settled principle that the State and its instrumentalities cannot evade their financial liabilities on the pretext of budgetary constraints or paucity of funds, particularly when the liability has already been admitted. Such action on the part of the Respondents is not only arbitrary but also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it results in unequal and unfair treatment of the Petitioner despite full compliance with contractual obligations. It has been also submitted that despite repeated representations made by the Petitioner, the Respondents have failed to 5 take any steps for release of the admitted dues, thereby compelling the Petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been further submitted that in a similar matter, WPC No.5223 of 2024 (Yugal Sound Service And Electric Goods Suppliers Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other) decided on 22-01-2025, the Hon’ble Court has already held that where the work stands completed and the claim is undisputed, the Respondents are duty-bound to verify and release the payment within a reasonable time. In the present case as well, the continued inaction of the Respondents is causing grave financial hardship to the Petitioner and warrants interference by this Hon’ble Court for issuance of appropriate directions for release of the outstanding amount within a time-bound manner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the relief sought by the petitioner is with respect to alleged contractual obligations between the parties and involves disputed questions of fact requiring detailed examination of records. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction ought not to be invoked for enforcement of contractual claims, particularly where factual adjudication is required. The writ jurisdiction is discretionary and to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances involving clear arbitrariness, which is absent in the present case, as there is no arbitrary or mala fide action on part of the respondents but only a procedural and contractual compliance requirement. Hence, the present writ petition seeking monetary relief is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 6 6. We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best) and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023 vide judgment dated 19.05.2023 held as follows : “48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public 7 exchequer. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489). 52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway, would not be in public interest. Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. This is evident from a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679. 53. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide 8 whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere. 54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.” 8. Upon perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Limited (Supra), as the Apex Court has categorically held that judicial review in contractual and tender matters must be exercised with great restraint and only in cases where clear arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality is demonstrated, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstance is made out, and the dispute raised by the petitioner pertains purely to non-release of alleged contractual dues, which involves factual determination regarding completion of work, compliance of contractual conditions, measurements and verification, and therefore falls within the domain of a civil dispute. The scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited and the Court ordinarily does not interfere unless the 9 decision-making process is found to be arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law, which is not established in the present case. Hence, in light of the settled legal position, the present petition seeking release of payment under a contract is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed, leaving the petitioner to avail appropriate alternative remedies available under law. 9. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil