1 2026:CGHC:26833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1642 of 2022 1 - Madhukar Dharamgude S/o Mr. Gokul Ram Dharamgude Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Gram Sendongar, Madiyan, Lalbahadur Nagar Tehsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Police Housing Corporation Limited, Head Office, Old Police Headquarter, S I B Building Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Managing Director, Kunjan Arora, Lambda Eastern Telecommunication Ltd., 108, First Floor, Transport Center, Rhotak Road, New Delhi 110035, District : New Delhi, Delhi 4 - Collector, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shashank Mehta, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 01.07.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition filed for issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to release the outstanding amount of Rs.88,88,525/-, along with compensation/interest, allegedly payable towards construction work executed by the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is carrying on the business of civil construction under the name and style of M/s M.M. Construction. It is pleaded that construction work relating to Police Housing buildings situated at Chilhati, Mohla and Gaindatola, District Rajnandgaon, was entrusted and the petitioner completed the construction work in the year 2018. According to the petitioner, upon completion of the work, a completion and quality certificate dated 12.02.2018 was issued by the Engineer concerned. It is further pleaded that although the respondents acknowledged the outstanding liability by communication dated 03.12.2019, an amount of Rs.88,88,525/- still remains unpaid. The petitioner submits that despite making several representations before the authorities, approaching the Collector, Rajnandgaon, and initiating proceedings before the Labour Court, he has not received the payment. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents, the present writ petition has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had duly executed the work entrusted to him and there 3 is no dispute regarding the completion of the project. It is contended that despite issuance of the completion certificate and acknowledgment of the outstanding dues, the respondents have arbitrarily withheld the petitioner's legitimate payment. It is further submitted that repeated representations submitted by the petitioner have remained unattended and the continued withholding of the admitted amount is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that the petitioner invested substantial financial resources for execution of the work and the non-payment of the admitted dues has caused severe financial hardship. Therefore, appropriate directions deserve to be issued commanding the respondents to release the outstanding amount together with applicable interest and compensation. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner is merely a sub-contractor. The principal contract was awarded to Lambda Eastern Telecommunication Limited, which, in turn, engaged the petitioner as its sub-contractor for execution of a part of the work. It is contended that any grievance arising out of the contractual arrangement is required to be agitated against the said company with whom the petitioner entered into a contractual relationship. It is further submitted that the State authorities neither appointed the petitioner as a contractor nor entered into any agreement or contractual relationship with him. Therefore, no enforceable legal right exists against the State authorities and 4 consequently no writ can be issued directing the State to satisfy the petitioner's contractual claim arising out of a private agreement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the pleadings on record, it is evident that the petitioner was engaged as a sub-contractor by Lambda Eastern Telecommunication Limited, which had been awarded the principal contract. Admittedly, there is no agreement or contractual relationship between the petitioner and the State authorities. The petitioner's claim for payment arises solely from the contractual arrangement entered into between the petitioner and the principal contractor. 7. It is well settled that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not maintainable for enforcement of purely contractual rights, particularly where the dispute arises out of a private contract and the State is not a party to such contractual arrangement. Since the petitioner has failed to establish any privity of contract between himself and the State authorities, no mandamus can be issued directing the State to discharge an alleged contractual liability owed by the principal contractor. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the petitioner has any subsisting grievance regarding non-payment of the amount allegedly due for the work executed by him as a sub-contractor, 5 the appropriate remedy lies against the concerned principal contractor, namely Respondent No.3 - Lambda Eastern Telecommunication Limited, before the competent forum in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out against the State authorities. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 10.However, it is made clear that dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such remedy as may be available to him in law against Respondent No.3 - Lambda Eastern Telecommunication Limited, with whom the petitioner admittedly entered into the contractual arrangement as a sub-contractor. If any such proceedings are initiated, the same shall be considered on their own merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in the present order. 11.No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha