The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the intra-court appeal by holding that the payment of the outstanding bill was admitted by counsel for the respondents, leaving nothing substantive for adjudication and consigning the appeal to the record.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 67 of 2023
Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o P. L. Mittal Aged About 55 Years R/o HIG 02 M.P. Nagar, Niharika, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Malay Shrivatava, Advocate. : For Respondent/State Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01.11.2023
Heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 1/State and Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3.
2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the
2
learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5058 of 2021 ( Ashok Kumar Mittal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed off the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would submit that respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation, Korba (C.G.) has issued a notice inviting Tenders for some various construction works including infrastructure under PMAY-HFA Scheme. The appellant being eligible, has submitted its bid and being the lowest bidder, bid of the appellant was accepted and work order was issued in favour of the appellant. Within the stipulated time, the appellant has completed the work and the respondent No. 2 has also issued the work completion certificate and the satisfaction certificate to the appellant. After completion of the work, the appellant submitted its full and final bill to the tune of Rs. 6,02,79,619/- and after applicable tax reduction, the final amount which the respondents No. 2 & 3 have to pay to the appellant is Rs. 5,63,18,386/-, but in spite of lapse of more than one year of completion of work, full and final bill amount of the appellant has not paid. Thereafter, the appellant/petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court, being WPC No. 5058 of 2021, seeking the following reliefs:
“ (i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent No. 2 and 3 to pay the full and final bill of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,63,18,386/-.
(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of submission of full and final bill by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2.
3
(iii) Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
(iv) Cost of the petition. ”
4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge while hearing the matter finally and after having heard the parties has partly allowed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 13.09.2022, but has not granted the interest on the payment for which the appellant is entitled. Therefore, the aforesaid order dated 13.09.2022 whereby, learned Single Judge, partly allowed the writ petition is untenable in the eyes of law.
6. Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 further submits that as per the instructions received by him, the outstanding amount has been paid to the appellant and he has also served a copy of the statement to the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the interest for the amount has not been paid by the respondents No. 2 and 3, hence it may also be ordered to be paid by them, but the said prayer of the appellant is rejected as the learned Single Judge has not passed any order with respect to payment of any interest for the outstanding amount.
4
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record.
9. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3, nothing survives for adjudication. The present writ appeal is consigned to record.
Sd/- Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan
Ashok Kumar Mittal
State of Chhattisgarh
Municipal Corporation, Korba
Ramesh Sinha
Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
