2026:CGHC:8375-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 698 of 2026 Gedam snd Sons Through Proprietor Ravindra Gedam S/o Bharat Gedam, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 64/ A Maitri Vihar, Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director/Commissioner Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Dornapal, District - Sukma (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional AG Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board (17.02.2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the non-action of the Respondent No.3 is not providing the work layout to commence the work allotted to him by way of work order dated 10.10.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a contractor based in Chhattisgarh State and had sought work layout from the respondent authorities after issuance of work order in the tender issued on 10.10.2025 with S.No./646/P.W.D./2024-25 Dornapal, District Sukma (C.G.) which is not provided till date. He would next contend that the representation has already been served to respondent authorities for supply of work layout well within time, but the same has not been supplied to the petitioner and because of which the petitioner could not commence the work. He would lastly contend that since the work order has been issued to the petitioner on 19/11/2025 which contains a stipulated clause at Sr. No.4 wherein it has been mentioned that the work has to be completed within 03 months except the rainy season and the stipulated period of 03 months is expiring tomorrow i.e. on 18.02.2026, therefore, in such eventuality the petitioner may be allowed to make application seeking extension of time to execute the work allotted to him. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that the work order has been issued by respondent No.3, therefore, Respondent No.3 may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner for extension of time. 4. Be that as it may, considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case that since the work order has been issued to the petitioner on 19/11/2025, however, till date the lay out has not been supplied to the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to file a fresh representation today itself before respondent No.3 for extending the work order and issuance of work layout and on such representation being filed, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent No.3 expeditiously without further delay. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of. C.C. Today. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Vasant