1 CGHC010263172026 2026:CGHC:34630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3742 of 2026 1 - M/s Shri Bharat Kiraya Bhandar Raipur Through Its Proprietor Rajendra Singh Hora S/o Late Sardar Jogendra Singh Hora Aged About 48 Years R/o Near Santoshi Nagar, Shyam Nagar Raipur Distt- Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Cultural And Archaeology Department 2nd Floor, Commercial Complex, Sector- 27, Nawagaon Parsatti Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Cultural And Archaeology Department Muktangan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Joint Director, Of Directorate Of Cultural And Archaeology Department Muktangan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the payment of Rs. 60,77,369/- with interest of 12% per annum in favour of the petitioner. ii. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been paid the undisputed amount of Rs. 62,96,369/-, which remains outstanding towards the services rendered by the petitioner during the period from 28.10.2021 to 30.10.2021. It is submitted that the petitioner provided various services, including arrangements for tents, catering, lighting, sound systems, and other allied facilities in connection with the programme organized during the aforesaid period. In support of the claim, the petitioner submitted the requisite bills, which were duly endorsed and recommended by the concerned Minister. Learned counsel further submits that not only do the official note-sheets acknowledge the petitioner's claim, but a specific communication dated 16.03.2022 3 was also issued by the concerned Minister to the Director of the Department recommending release of the petitioner's legitimate dues. Despite the existence of these recommendations and the fact that the liability is stated to be undisputed, the respondent authorities have failed to release the payment. Aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, on instructions, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that no administrative approval was ever obtained for the work in question. It is contended that the communications relied upon by the petitioner were issued only by the concerned Minister and were not preceded by or accompanied with the requisite approval of the competent administrative authority. It is further submitted that neither any sanction was accorded by the competent authority nor were any departmental instructions issued by the Secretary of the concerned Department authorizing such expenditure. Consequently, the amount claimed by the petitioner cannot be treated as an undisputed liability. Learned State counsel further submits that the documents placed on record do not clearly establish that the services were rendered pursuant to any formal work order, authorization, or instructions issued by the Department. In the absence of such material, it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner is entitled to the 4 amount claimed, and therefore the same cannot be categorized as an admitted or undisputed amount. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record, and considered the recommendation letters issued by the concerned Minister during the relevant period, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires consideration by the competent authority. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit a comprehensive representation before the competent authority seeking release of the amount claimed. Upon receipt of such representation, respondent No. 2 shall examine the petitioner's claim by conducting such enquiry as may be necessary to ascertain whether the services alleged by the petitioner were in fact rendered and whether the same were utilized for the programme in question. The competent authority shall also verify the relevant records, documents, recommendations, and any other material available on record. If, upon such enquiry, it is found that the petitioner had indeed rendered the services as claimed and is otherwise entitled to payment, the competent authority shall consider the petitioner's claim sympathetically and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, including appropriate orders for release of the admissible amount. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, and all questions of fact and law are left open to be examined by the competent authority. The 5 petitioner shall submit a copy of this order along with a detailed representation and all relevant supporting documents before respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Upon receipt thereof, respondent No. 1 shall consider and decide the petitioner's representation, strictly in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 60 days. While undertaking such exercise, the competent authority shall specifically examine whether the petitioner had rendered the services pursuant to the instructions or directions issued by the competent authorities, including the concerned Minister, whether the programme in question was actually conducted under such directions, and whether the services provided by the petitioner were utilized for the said programme. If these aspects are established upon verification of the relevant records, the competent authority shall take the same into consideration and pass appropriate orders regarding payment of the petitioner's lawful dues in accordance with law. 6. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat