1 CGHC010213972021 2026:CGHC:28133-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3477 of 2021 Mahashakti Transport Through Its Proprietor Manish Mishra, Ward No. 07, Bazarpara, Koriya Colliery, Chirmiri, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South East Coalfield Limited Through Chief Managing Director, Head Quarter, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001 2 - South East Coalfield Limited Through General Manager, Chirmiri Area, P. O. West Chirmiri, District Korea Chhattisgarh 497773 3 - South East Coalfield Limited Through General Manager, Baikunthpur Area, District Korea Chhattisgarh 497335 4 - South East Coalfield Limited Through General Manager, Bishrampur Area, P. O. Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh 497226 5 - South East Coalfield Limited Office Of The Staff Office, Gevra Area, P. O. Gevra Project, District Korba Chhattisgarh 495452 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.09 11:26:56 +0530 2 08.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for following relief:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court my kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 05.12.2020 (Annexure P/11). (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court my kindly be pleased to directed the respondent to clear all the pending bills of the petitioner and also directed to released the bills of the petitioner. (iv) Its further prayed to directed the respondent to refund the amount already recovered from the buses of the petitioner by the respondent /local bodies together with the interest. (v) Any other relief as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith.” 3. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner, a proprietorship concern, M/s Mahashakti Transport through its proprietor Manish Kumar Mishra, is engaged in the business of providing transportation services. The petitioner was awarded several contracts by different authorities of SECL between 2017 and 2021 for providing school buses and light motor vehicles on hire for various project areas, including Chirmiri, Baikunthpur, Bishrampur and Gevra, under separate work orders. According to the petitioner, it duly 3 executed the contractual obligations and submitted bills and tax invoices from time to time; however, the respondent authorities withheld an aggregate amount of Rs. 80,21,587/-, including pending bills and security deposits, without assigning any reasons. Upon seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner was informed that, pursuant to a communication dated 05.12.2020, all payments to the petitioner had been withheld on the allegation that the petitioner had fraudulently received approximately Rs. 38,09,471/- against an expired contract. Contending that even if such allegation pertained only to the said amount, the withholding of the entire outstanding dues under independent contracts was arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking release of the withheld payments. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acted illegally and arbitrarily in withholding the entire amount of Rs.80,21,587/-, despite the communication dated 05.12.2020 alleging a disputed amount of only Rs.38,09,471/-. It is contended that although a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and certain SECL employees alleging offences under Sections 420, 468, 409, 471 and 120-B of the IPC in relation to the Chirmiri Area, the respondents have withheld payments not only under the contracts pertaining to Chirmiri but also under independent contracts executed in Baikunthpur, Bishrampur and Gevra Areas, which have no nexus with the allegations forming the subject 4 matter of the said FIR. It is further submitted that the respondents have neither produced any material establishing that the petitioner fraudulently withdrew any amount by forgery nor initiated any departmental proceedings substantiating such allegations. The petitioner has already been granted regular bail by this Court on 08.07.2021, and mere pendency of criminal proceedings cannot justify the indefinite withholding of the petitioner’s legitimate contractual dues under unrelated contracts. It is lastly argued that the impugned action has been taken without issuance of any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the action arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as it is barred by the principles of res judicata, the petitioner having earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 2649 of 2021 on the same cause of action, which was withdrawn on 26.08.2021 after recording that the grievance stood redressed. It is further contended that the petition involves disputed questions of fact arising out of contractual obligations and, therefore, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a civil suit or arbitration under Clause 13 of the contract. On merits, it is submitted that during scrutiny of bills on 19.11.2020, it was discovered that the petitioner had allegedly obtained fraudulent payments of about Rs. 38 lakhs by raising invoices against expired contracts, that the invoices bore apparently forged 5 signatures, were not routed through the prescribed bill tracking system, were absent from the official ledgers, and that the Coal Net credentials of departmental personnel appeared to have been hacked. Consequently, an FIR was lodged on 25.11.2020 against the petitioner’s proprietor, who was subsequently arrested, and considering the seriousness of the allegations, payments due to the petitioner in Chirmiri as well as other SECL Areas were withheld in terms of the General Conditions of Contract. It is further submitted that explanations sought from the petitioner regarding deployment of hired buses were found unsatisfactory, that departmental vigilance enquiry is still in progress, and that verification further revealed instances where buses bearing the same registration number were allegedly shown to have operated simultaneously at different units, thereby indicating fraudulent claims. It is, therefore, argued that the bills being disputed and the investigation still pending, the respondents were justified in withholding the payments and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents brought on record. 7. The dispute raised by the petitioner emanates from contractual transactions involving disputed claims relating to payment of bills and security deposits, which are seriously contested by the respondents on allegations of fraud, forgery and wrongful receipt of payments. The adjudication of such issues would necessarily 6 require appreciation of disputed questions of fact and examination of evidence, which cannot conveniently be undertaken in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available in accordance with law, including the remedies contemplated under the contract. In such circumstances, no case for interference is made out. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet