1 CGHC010355822026 2026:CGHC:40362-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4695 of 2026 M/s Awadhesh And General Hardware C-Class Contractor, Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Through The Proprietor Ravi Kumar Bani S/o Awadhesh Bani, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post - Lundra, P.S. Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner (Land Records) Block No. 2 First Floor, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chairman Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Head Office, Prayas Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Commissioner Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Head Office, Prayas Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - The Collector, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 6 - The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Ambikapur Division, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.09.17 17:37:35 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Mrs. Sushma Sawant, Judge Order on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu , Judge 16.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1, 2 & 5 / State as well as Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for respondents No. 3, 4 & 6. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to forthwith release the rest contract money in favour of petitioner, with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of completion of work to the date of its actual payment. In alternate That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for deciding the 3 pending representation of petitioner dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P/6) for payment of full and final amount of contract. 10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a C-Class Contractor registered under the Housing Board Corporation (respondent No.3). He contended that respondent No.3 floated a tender for construction of Tehsil office building at Daura Kochli, District-Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), with estimated cost of Rs.64,70,826/- in which the petitioner became successful. The petitioner has completed the construction of the building within the period specified in the tender document and submitted the bill. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.32,29,000/-, however, the balance amount is not paid to the petitioner till date. The petitioner, for execution of the work, obtained a loan from the private finance company and is required to pay the interest thereon also. The petitioner has approached the respondent authorities on several occasions making the request for release of the balance amount of Rs.32,41,826/- for the work completed by the petitioner, however, no heed was given to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation before respondent No.6 on 20.02.2026 (Annexure P/6), however, his representation has also not been considered and no order has been passed for releasing of the balance fund. 4 4. Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for respondents No.3, 4 and 6, would submit that it is not in dispute that the answering respondents have floated the NIT for the work as mentioned therein, however, the said construction work is being financed by the State and the funds are to be released through the Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj. After receipt of the pay bill, the respondents have made a request to the Collector, Balrampur- Ramanujganj for release of the balance amount of the petitioner, however, the funds till date have not been released by respondent No.5-Collector, Balrampur-Ramanujganj. 5. Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for respondents No.1, 2 & 5/State, would submit that from the documents annexed itself, it is apparent that the tender is floated by respondents No.3, 4 & 6 and therefore, the liability to pay would be upon the said respondents. He also submits that in view of the arguments raised by Mr. Patel, he may be granted some time to seek instructions. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. From the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner, it is apparent that the tender was floated by respondents No.3, 4 and 6. Counsel for the said respondents have not disputed the pleadings made in the writ petition by the petitioner as having successfully completed the work within the period specified. Submission of Mr. Patel is that the payment could not be released 5 to the petitioner for want of fund because the State agency, that is, respondent No.5-Collector, has not disbursed the amount to respondents No.3, 4 & 6. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 while considering the obligations of an instrumentality of the State in contractual matters, has held as under:- “53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution.” 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we permit the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before all the respondents and if such a representation is submitted, the authorities are directed to consider and decide the same within a period of 3 months, from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the Supreme Court judgment in ABL International Limited (supra). 10. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sushma Sawant) Judge Judge Manpreet