Dismissed

M/S Manoj Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Sept 2023WA/116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

} an appeal against a Single Judge order dismissing a writ petition seeking release of unpaid dues. The bench held that since a genuine dispute exists regarding the quality of work and potential forfeiture, the Court cannot exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct payment. The appellant is directed to approach the appropriate forum for redressal.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; no payment ordered; liberty granted to approach appropriate forum.

M/S Manoj Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WA No. 116 of 2023

¶5

M/s Manoj Agrawal Having Its Proprietor Late Shri Manoj Agrawal (Since Dead), Through His Legal Representative Shri Tanay Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Manoj Agarawal, Aged About 22 Years, Having Its OfÏce At T-24, 25, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G.-492001, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Urban Administrative And Development Department, Through Its Secretary, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-D, 4th Floor, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Nagar Panchayat Gariyaband, Through Chief Executive OfÏcer, Nagar Panchayat, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Sub Engineer Municipal Corporation, Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

President Nagar Panchayat Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant	: Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocate.
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Government
	Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 2 to 4	: Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate

¶15

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. N. K. Chandravanshi , Judge

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.09.2023

¶19

Heard Mr. Vivek Chopda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State and Mr. Adil Minhaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶20

Also heard on I.A. No. 2/2022, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal.

¶21

On due consideration and the submission made by counsel for the appellant, which is well supported by an affidavit, I.A. No. 2/2022 is allowed. Delay in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned.

¶22

This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 09.01.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 3415 of 2021, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner / appellant has been dismissed.

¶23

Essential facts leading to filing of this writ appeal are that the appellant is a A-5 class contractor and was running a business of construction in various government departments and at that relevant point of time, Mr. Manoj Agrawal was the Proprietor and during Covid-19 pandemic, the said Proprietor expired on 14.05.2021 leaving behind his only son i.e. Mr. Tanay Agrawal, who is the only legal representative apart from his mother and looking after all the

¶24

¶25

estates of the deceased Mr. Manoj Agrawal. On 30.06.2012, a NIT was floated by respondent No. 2 for construction of Stadium at Nagar Panchayat, Gariyaband, for which the proposed amount was determined as Rs.407.26 lakhs, in which, the petitioner was participated and declared as L-1 bidder. The petitioner was awarded the work order on 11.12.2012 wherein the bid submitted by the petitioner was accepted by the respondents, which was 8.99% above the SOR. Soon after issuance of the work order, the petitioner had started the work in accordance with the terms & condition mentioned in the contract and had completed the entire work in the year 2017 to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents authorities and at various points of time, the bills were prepared by the respondent authorities and paid to the petitioner. Subsequently, on 12.04.2017, a notice was issued to the petitioner to the effect that instead of wooden flooring at the multipurpose hall, Mosaic tiles be placed, in pursuance thereof, the petitioner has duly informed that the concerned Engineer and Architect Mr. Navin Sharma directed him to do the flooring with Mosaic tiles, as in the multipurpose hall, there would be ceremonies and other proceedings would be conducted, therefore, wooden flooring would not be sufficient. Thereafter, on 27.10.2017 for getting the wooden flooring done and regarding which appropriate permission has been obtained from the State Government and the petitioner was directed to place the wooden flooring after removing the mosaic tiles. The appellant has replied to same vide letter dated 13.11.2017 by stating that since the

¶26

¶27

tender was floated in the year 2012 and thereafter 5 years have elapsed and, therefore, the work of wooden could not be conducted by the petitioner at the rates which were accepted in the year 2012, thereafter, no communication whatsoever was ever made by the respondent authorities, but the appellant on 02.07.2019 submitted final bill as well as security deposit, but the respondent authorities did not pay the admitted dues even though repeated requests have been made by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred the petition before the learned Single Judge to the effect that his payment may be released forthwith within the time frame, as may be fixed by this Court.

¶28

Learned Single Judge, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides, disposed of the writ petition vide impugned order dated 09.01.2023 by recording a finding in paragraphs 5 and 6, which read thus :-

¶29

“5. Given the nature of reply that the respondent have filed, particularly in respect of the dispute raised and also denying the fact that the claim of the petitioner is undisputed, moreover, the respondents are making the statement that the petitioner has been paid substantially for the work that he has worked and it is not a case where there was any mala-fide against the petitioner. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that since there are dispute being raised by the respondents in respect of the claim raised by the petitioner, the

¶30

¶31

respondent cannot in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 be directed to release the unpaid payment of the petitioner. The right of the petitioner stands reserved for availing such other remedies available to the Petitioner for raising the dispute in getting the grievance or dispute redressed.

¶32

Accordingly, the present writ petitioner stands disposed of.”

¶33

Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the same.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Single Judge is unjustified in dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner for releasing unpaid dues left with the respondent authorities, as there is no specific order so far as forfeiture of security deposit or any order of blacklisting that has been passed against the petitioner till date, as such, the payment of the appellant may be released forthwith within the time frame, by allowing the instant writ appeal.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the submission made by counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Single Judge is absolutely justified in disposing off the petition observing that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, respondents authorities cannot be directed to release the unpaid payment of the petitioner and the appellant has an alternative efficacious alternative remedies for raising the dispute

¶36

¶37

and getting the same adjudicated. It is next submitted that respondents authorities raised a dispute with regard to quality of work done by the appellant and the nature of work executed by the appellant-firm entailed for forfeiture of his security amount . It is submitted that respondent No. 2 – Municipal council in its note-sheet dated 02.02.2018 proposed that the Contractor Manoj Agrawal be imposed with the penalty for the failure on his part to properly and completely execute the work awarded and, therefore, the security deposit, as deposited, be directed to be forfeited and, therefore, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

¶39

Admittedly, the claim of the appellant is with regard to certain works of civil nature, which carried out by the appellant-firm. Respondents authorities in their reply, denied the fact that the claim of the appellant is undisputed, moreover, the respondents are making the statement that the appellant has already been paid substantially for the work that he has worked and it is not a case where there was any malafied against the petitioner. Thus, looking the facts & circumstances of the case, we are of view that learned Single Judge has rightly held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, respondents could not have been directed to release the unpaid payment of the petitioner and for which the appellant has an alternative efficacious remedy

¶40

¶41

available for raising the dispute in getting the grievance or dispute redressed, which does not call for any interference by this court in the instant writ appeal. However the appellant is at liberty to approach before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance.

¶42

As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed with the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the appellant.

¶43

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. Chadravanshi ) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶44

amita

M/S Manoj Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manoj Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satauram Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ranu Beck Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamla Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hadma Maadvi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Goyal (Petitioner in Person) Vs State of Chhattisgarh