1 CGHC010247162021 2026:CGHC:41381 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4025 of 2021 1 - Ganga Sagar Pathak, S/o Late Kapileshwar Pathak, Aged About 50 Years Contractor, R/o Irrigation Colony, Rampur, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer - In - Chief, Water Resources Department, Sihawa Bhawan, Civil Line, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer, Minimata (Hasdeo) Bango Project, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Executive Engineer, Hasdeo Barrage Water Management Division, Raipur / Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Ajay Rathore (Unemployed Engineer), R/o Q/no. G-2, Irrigation Colony, Madanpur Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 6 - Rakesh Pankaj (Unemployed Civil Engineer), R/o- Q.No. 888- 886/4/2a, Balco Nagar, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Kishan Gupta (Unemployed Civil Engineer), R/o - Village Jarve, Block Baloda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 8 - Kaamesh Kumar Chandra (Unemployed Civil Engineer), R/o- H.No.534,w.No.08, Kali Square, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Pratik Singh Thakur, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate For State :- Mrs. Akansha Verma Dhabedkar, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 23.09.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 That the Records pertaining to the tenders, work completion, process of payments, stage of process ofpayments, procedures adopted by the respondents and stage of release of amounts to the petitioner and private respondents may be called for kind per usual of this Honourable Court. 10.2 That the Hon'ble High Court may Kindly direct the respondent authorities may be directed to 3 release the amounts due to the private respondents as per their work orders, agreements and tenders for which they were they selected and they are entitled for, and private respondents may be directed to pay the petitioner for the work which petitioner has completed for the private respondents. 10.3. That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a contractor, was engaged by the private respondents, who are unemployed graduate Civil Engineers, for execution of the work allotted to them by the respondent authorities pursuant to the N.I.T. issued in the year 2018 for construction of retaining walls under the Minimata Hasdeo Bango Project. It is submitted that the private respondents were duly selected for execution of the respective works and engaged the petitioner, who executed the works by deploying the requisite human and material resources and his expertise, and completed the same within the prescribed time. However, despite completion of the works, the respondent authorities have not released the amounts payable to the private respondents, nor have they communicated any reason for withholding such payments. It is submitted that the private respondents are liable to pay the petitioner the amounts due towards the works executed by him and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief. 4 3. Learned State counsel submits that no work order was ever issued in favour of the petitioner by the respondent authorities. The petitioner is merely a sub-contractor engaged by the private respondents and has no direct contractual relationship with the respondent authorities. Therefore, in the absence of any work order or contractual privity between the petitioner and the respondent authorities, no direction for release of any amount in favour of the petitioner can be issued in the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From perusal of the work orders, it appears that the work orders in question were issued by the respondent authorities in favour of private respondents No.5 to 8. Admittedly, no work order was issued in favour of the petitioner, nor was the petitioner a party to the contracts entered into between the respondent authorities and private respondents No.5 to 8. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any amount directly from the respondent authorities on the basis of the work allegedly executed by him as a sub-contractor of the private respondents. 6. If any amount is due to the petitioner towards the work executed by him, his remedy would lie against private respondents No.5 to 8, with whom he claims to have entered into an arrangement for execution of the work. Any dispute regarding payment of such amount is essentially a private contractual dispute between the 5 petitioner and private respondents No.5 to 8 and cannot be adjudicated in the present writ petition against the respondent authorities. 7. In view of the aforesaid, no enforceable right of the petitioner against the respondent authorities is made out. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit and not maintainable against the respondent authorities, is dismissed. 8. However, dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such remedy as may be available to him in law against private respondents No.5 to 8. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha