This Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking payment for installed High Mast Lights where facts regarding completion and work order validity were disputed between parties.
Petition dismissed; no payment directed; liberty to approach Court of law retained.
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
WPC No. 1431 of 2022
------Petitioner
VERSUS
------- Respondents
(cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General along with Mr. Niraj Baghel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Prateek Kumar Waghmare, Advocate along with Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate
SB:Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD
04/07/2024
“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ, order or directions directing the Respondents to make the payment of the admitted promised amount which is withheld unlawfully making unreasonable deductions along with the interest to the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorities to grant the cost for the instant petition.
10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”
2
way of e-mail has ordered the petitioner for installation of High Mast Lights at Luthra Sharif, District – Bilaspur and also shown urgency that it has to be inaugurated by the Hon’ble Chief Minister and therefore, the installation is to be made at the earliest. Based on the e-mail order issued by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner installed the High Mast Lights at the identified place. However, after installation of the lights and completion of work, when petitioner submitted the bill to the tune of Rs. 14,42,449.72/-, it was not paid to him and therefore, this writ petition is filed. He contended that the work was awarded by the Respondent No. 3 to the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 3 is the State instrumentality, therefore, the Respondents No. 2 & 3 are duty bound to pay the admitted dues against the installation of the High Mast Lights. He contended that the installation of the lights was completed on 15.11.2020 and since last about more than 3 ½ years, the claim of the petitioner was not considered. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Unitech Limited Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Limited & Ors. (2021) 16 SCC 35 and ABL International Limited & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (2004) 3 SCC 553.
3
completed the work by 15.11.2020 is per se wrong. The tender which was awarded in favour of the Respondent No. 2 was subsequently canceled by the Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 28.01.2021. He submits that from the above mentioned facts of the case, there are disputed facts which cannot be decided in this writ petition and therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4
reply of the Respondent No. 2 would show that the Divisional Forest Officer wrote letter to the Respondent No. 3 stating that till 30.1.2021, the
High Mast Lights were not installed.
Limited Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Limited & Ors.
(2021) 16 SCC 35 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that:
“In determining as to whether jurisdiction should be exercised in a contractual dispute, the Court must, undoubtedly, eschew, disputed question of fact which would depend upon an evidentiary determination requiring a trial.”
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge
Dey
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact regarding the completion of contractual work and payment of dues.
Whether the bench can determine the validity of an email order versus formed work orders in the absence of a full trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Unitech Limited Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Limited & Ors.Referred¶34
Unitech Limited Vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Limited & Ors. (2021) 16 SCC 35 · Who else cites this
ABL International Limited & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of IndiaReferred¶22
ABL International Limited & Anr. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (2004) 3 SCC 553 · Who else cites this
Chartered Engeenering And Trading Enterprises
Union Of India
Hindustan Prefab Limited
Chhattisgarh Tourism Board
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
