1 / 5 CGHC010022712021 2026:CGHC:36200-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 634 of 2021 Sanjay Kumar Pandey S/o Late Shri Bharat Pandey Aged About 51 Years R/o L.I.G.- 68, Pt. R.S.S. Nagar, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Forest Officer Korba, Forest Department, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Forest Division Officer North Korba, Forest Department Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.19 10:57:11 +0530 2 / 5 Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 14/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to finalize his bills and release the alleged outstanding payment in respect of the construction work of Sub-Health Centre, Karmandi, District Korba. The respondents/State, in their reply, have disputed the petitioner’s claim and have stated that the petitioner was awarded the work for supply of construction material, against which the bills raised by him were duly paid and no amount remains outstanding. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “1] That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to finalize the bills of the petitioner and to make the final payment of the bills. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the 3 / 5 petitioner had duly completed the work entrusted to him, and the work executed by him was duly inspected and verified by the concerned authorities. It is further submitted that the measurement book was verified and the final bills were prepared, yet the respondents have failed to release the balance payment without assigning any valid or lawful reason. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondents themselves have acknowledged completion of the work and, therefore, withholding of the petitioner’s legitimate dues is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the respondents may be directed to release the outstanding amount payable to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submit that the petitioner has incorrectly claimed that he was awarded the construction work of the Sub-Health Centre, Karmandi. In fact, the petitioner was awarded the work only for supply of construction material pursuant to the tender process, and the materials supplied by him were duly paid for against the bills raised by him. It is further submitted that, as per the records available with the respondents, no amount is outstanding or payable to the petitioner. Learned State counsel would further submit that the inquiry conducted by the concerned authorities also records that the construction work was completed and the payments towards the material supplied by the petitioner had already been made. Therefore, there being no outstanding dues payable to the petitioner, the present petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. 4 / 5 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have perused the material available on record. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, despite completion of the work and preparation of the final bills, the respondents have failed to release the balance amount claimed by him. However, the respondents have specifically disputed the very basis of such claim and have stated that the petitioner was not awarded any construction work. Rather, pursuant to the tender process, he was entrusted only with the work of supplying construction material for the Sub-Health Centre, Karmandi. The material supplied by the petitioner was duly received and the bills raised in respect thereof were paid. The respondents have also stated that, as per the records available with them, no amount remains outstanding against the petitioner. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to place on record any work order showing that the construction work, as claimed by him, was entrusted to him. On the contrary, the documents and the stand taken by the respondents indicate that the petitioner was awarded the work of supply of construction material and that the payments in respect thereof had already been made. The inquiry report placed on record also records that the construction material was supplied through tender and payment thereof was made to the petitioner. 9. Thus, in view of the specific stand of the respondents and in the absence of any cogent material demonstrating that any amount remains due and payable to the petitioner, no direction for release of the alleged outstanding amount can be issued in exercise of the writ 5 / 5 jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to establish any enforceable right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Consequently, the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such alternative remedy as may be available to him before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved