1 CGHC010330592026 2026:CGHC:38765-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 822 of 2026 M/s Netram Sahu Registered As Class-B Contractor, S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Sahu, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Sambalpur, Post Singhola, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchyat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Civil And Revenue, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - The Engineer In Chief (Tender Cell) Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency (CGRRDA), Vikas Bhawan, Gandai, (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) 4 - The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary P.I.U. No.1, Chhattisgarh Rual Road Development Agency (CGRRDA), Khairagarh, District-Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai, (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 02.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.09.03 10:27:10 +0530 2 2. The present MCC has been filed for modification of the order dated 20.07.2026 passed in WPC No.3744 of 2026 with the following relief:- “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to the order as to extend the time from the 1st November 2026 to December 2026 for completing the tender work bearing no. 15-303 under Pradhan Mantri Janman Yojna, contract no. 336/PIU/2023-2024, by allowing this application in the ends of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the order dated 20.07.2026, the petitioner was granted further time till 20.08.2026 to complete the remaining work under the concerned contract. It is submitted that thereafter the respondents issued a notice whereby road construction work was to remain closed from June to 15.10.2026, on account of which the petitioner could not commence and complete the remaining work within the time granted by this Court. It is further submitted that only the asphalt/bitumen work (damarikarana) remains to be completed, while the petitioner has already undertaken and completed the road repairing and maintenance work, and is ready and willing to complete the remaining work at his own risk. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation seeking extension of time from 01.11.2026 till the end of December, 2026, undertaking to complete the remaining work within the extended period. It is also submitted that the payments/bills for the work already 3 executed by the petitioner have not yet been sanctioned and released, causing financial hardship to him. In these circumstances, and considering that the petitioner is ready to complete the remaining work within the extended period, learned counsel prays that the order dated 20.07.2026 may kindly be modified to the limited extent of extending the time for completion of the remaining work from 01.11.2026 till the end of December, 2026, in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the document relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant as Annexure P-3 is neither any order nor any notification issued by the competent authority. It appears to be merely a WhatsApp conversation and, therefore, cannot be relied upon for seeking modification of the order passed by this Court. It is further submitted that at the time of passing of the order dated 20.07.2026, no submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the alleged rainy season or any consequential impediment in execution of the work. Thus, there is no ground warranting modification of the order dated 20.07.2026. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, we find that the ground now sought to be urged by the petitioner, particularly with regard to the alleged closure of road construction activities during the rainy season, was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time when the order dated 20.07.2026 was passed. The 4 order dated 20.07.2026 was passed after considering the submissions advanced by the parties and, taking into account the circumstances then prevailing, the petitioner was granted one further and final opportunity to complete the remaining work within a period of one month, i.e. up to 20.08.2026. In such circumstances, the subsequent material relied upon by the petitioner does not furnish sufficient ground for modification of the aforesaid order in the present proceedings. 6. It is also evident that the document relied upon by the petitioner as Annexure P-3 does not appear to be a formal order or notification issued by any competent authority, and its nature and legal effect cannot be adjudicated upon in the present miscellaneous application. The prayer made in the present MCC, in substance, seeks extension of the period granted by this Court under its order dated 20.07.2026 on the basis of subsequent events and disputed factual circumstances. Such a prayer, in the facts of the present case, cannot be granted by way of modification of the earlier order. We, therefore, find no sufficient ground to modify or extend the period stipulated under the order dated 20.07.2026. Accordingly, the present MCC stands dismissed. 7. However, dismissal of the present MCC shall not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to such remedy as may otherwise be available to him in law, if so advised, in respect of any subsequent or independent grievance, including any grievance arising out of any subsequent action of the respondents or any impediment allegedly caused in execution of the remaining work. If such proceedings are 5 instituted, the same shall be considered by the competent forum in accordance with law and on their own merits. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of any such fresh grievance or on the rights and contentions of the parties in respect thereof. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu