1 CGHC010273622026 2026:CGHC:34059-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4067 of 2026 M/s Ajay Kumar Rathore Engineers And Contractors, A Proprietorship Firm, Through Its Proprietor Shri Ajay Kumar Rathore, S/o Chedilal Rathore, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Plot No. 243/7, R S S Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 495677 ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Tribal Development, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector (Tribal Development) District Gariaband Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development, Gariaband, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh ... Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05.08.2026 1. Heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers :- ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “i. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 4; ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore the 13 Work Orders, all dated 06.03.2024, and to permit the Petitioner to complete the remaining balance works in terms of the original tender and contractual conditions and at the rates earlier quoted, within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; iii. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in execution of civil construction works for Government departments. Pursuant to administrative sanction dated 07.10.2023 issued under the Mukhyamantri School Jatan Yojana, the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Gariaband was appointed as the construction agency for construction of additional classrooms, toilets and repair works in Government schools. Following a tender process, the petitioner was awarded 13 separate works by Work Orders dated 06.03.2024 having a total contract value of Rs.1,75,14,000/-. According to the petitioner, the execution of the works was seriously affected due to circumstances beyond its control, including inaccessible forest locations, Naxalite activity, theft of construction materials, shortage of labour, difficult terrain, lack of electricity, changes in technical specifications and delay in 3 departmental approvals. The respondents released an amount of Rs.1,69,06,000/- against the works executed. Subsequently, show cause notices dated 31.12.2025 and 09.04.2026 were issued alleging delay in execution. The petitioner submitted detailed replies explaining the circumstances causing delay and requested extension of time. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 06.07.2026, the respondent authority cancelled all the 13 work orders, directed the petitioner to refund Rs.1,69,06,000/- within seven days, and further directed that in default the amount be recovered as arrears of land revenue and criminal proceedings be initiated. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that although show cause notices were issued and replies were duly furnished explaining the exceptional circumstances prevailing at the work sites, the respondents passed the impugned order without considering the petitioner's explanation and without granting any effective opportunity of personal hearing. It is further submitted that the finding recorded in the impugned order that no work had been executed is demonstrably incorrect. The annexure appended to the impugned order itself records that the works had progressed up to column level, plinth level and DPC level, thereby admitting that substantial construction had already been carried out. It is argued that once 4 the respondents themselves acknowledge execution of work, recovery of the entire amount paid is wholly unsustainable. Learned counsel further submits that no joint measurement, site inspection, valuation or assessment of the work executed was undertaken before directing recovery of the entire amount. The respondents have neither referred to any Measurement Book nor quantified the value of the work already executed. Consequently, the impugned recovery is arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the contract. It is also submitted that Clause 3 of the agreement merely authorizes cancellation of the contract, forfeiture of security deposit and execution of the remaining work at the risk and cost of the contractor. The said clause nowhere authorizes recovery of the entire amount already paid without adjusting the value of the work executed. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned action has civil consequences, including recovery as arrears of land revenue and initiation of criminal proceedings, and therefore the writ petition is maintainable despite any contractual stipulation. It is contended that the dispute is not a mere contractual dispute but involves arbitrary exercise of statutory powers by a public authority in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the relationship between the parties is governed by a written contract executed pursuant to the tender process. The agreement contains an arbitration clause as Clause No. 29 5 providing a complete and efficacious mechanism for adjudication of disputes arising out of or relating to execution of the contract. It is submitted that the grievances raised by the petitioner, including delay in execution, entitlement to payment, valuation of work executed, extension of time, adjustment of amounts and legality of recovery, are purely contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact. Such issues require appreciation of evidence, examination of Measurement Books, valuation of work and interpretation of contractual terms, which cannot appropriately be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned State counsel further submits that since the parties have consciously agreed to resolve contractual disputes through arbitration, the petitioner ought to avail the contractual remedy instead of invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the dispute raised by the petitioner including delay in execution, entitlement to payment, valuation of work executed, extension of time, adjustment of amounts and legality of recovery, are purely contractual disputes involving disputed questions of fact. Such issues require appreciation of evidence, examination of Measurement Books, valuation of work and interpretation of contractual terms. These issues are purely contractual in nature and involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6 7. It is not in dispute that the Contract Agreement/Letter of Acceptance contains an arbitration clause providing an efficacious alternative remedy for resolution of such disputes. The petitioner, having voluntarily participated in the tender process and accepted the contractual terms, is bound by the agreed dispute resolution mechanism. Mere invocation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, in the facts of the present case, does not confer jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain the writ petition, particularly when no exceptional circumstances such as patent lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice are made out. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of arbitration in accordance with the terms of the contract and law. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra