Shri Gopal Singh Vs the Municipal Corporation, Chirmiri

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 722 of 2024

¶5

Shri Gopal Singh S/o Shri Parikshit Singh Aged About 60 Years Address Ward No.4, B-Type, West Chirmiri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Municipal Corporation, Chirmiri Through The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. Chirmiri, Nagar, Nigam Colony, Chirmiri District Korea, Chhattisgarh 497773

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Sector 19, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur (CG) 492002

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer

¶12

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶13

02/07/2024

¶14

Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for following reliefs:-

¶15

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to forthwith release the admitted amount of Rs.12,59,110/- to the petitioner in terms of the purchase orders (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No.1; and/or

¶16

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief or order that this Hon’ble Court deems just and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, in order to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.”

¶17

2

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was awarded work by respondent No.1 for the development of Chowpati, Haldibari, Near Kalibari, Chirmiri. Work order was issued in favour of petitioner and was also provided with work layout. Petitioner commenced the work and completed 50% work. Thereafter, respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to stop the work and asked to submit bills for the work already done. Petitioner submitted total bill of Rs.12,59,110/- towards 50% work done. The Sub-Engineer and the Executive Engineer inspected the work done as well bill submitted by petitioner and certified that the work done by petitioner is as per specification of Public Works Department. Payment order was also issued by respondent No.1 in favour of petitioner. However, when the payment of admitted amount has not been released by respondent No.1 in favour of petitioner for sufficient long time, petitioner submitted representations on 03.10.2023 and 28.11.2023 for release of amount but till date no steps have been taken by respondent No.1 for release of admitted amount. Therefore, a direction be issued to respondent No.1 to release the admitted amount in favour of petitioner expeditiously, within specified time.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that a dispute has arisen between respondent No.1 and SECL relating to ownership of land over which development work was started, therefore, the petitioner was asked to stop the work. The proceedings for amicable

¶20

3

¶21

settlement between SECL, respondent No.1 and Local Administration are being undertaken and the same are likely to reach to a logical conclusion. He, however, does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based on Annexure P-4 that the petitioner has completed 50% of contracted work.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with writ petition.

¶23

Perusal of the Annexure P-2 dated 31.3.2021 would show that Municipal Corporation Chirmiri got sanction to carry out various development works within municipal area including development at Main Road, Haldibadi-Bada Bazar, Near Kalibadi, Haldibadi. As per Condition No.7 of this document, before floating tender or issuing work order, the Commissioner shall ensure that there is no dispute with respect to the land where construction work is to be done. Respondent No.1 issued tender notice for construction of Chaupati at Main Road, Haldibadi-Bada Bazar, Near Kalibadi, Haldibadi. Petitioner participated in tender process and after being declared successful bidder, the work order (Annexure P-1) was issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Chirmiri and pursuant thereto, the petitioner commenced the work. When more than 50% work was completed, respondent No.1 asked the petitioner to stop the work and to submit bills for the work already done. Petitioner submitted bill towards the value of work done, which was duly verified and certified by

¶24

4

¶25

the Sub Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department by mentioning that the work done by petitioner is as per specification of the Department.

¶26

In the return filed on behalf of respondent No.1 it is pleaded tha the land upon which the construction was carried out by the petitioner belongs to SECL and recently the meeting of all the stakeholders i.e. the officers of District Administration including the Collector, SECL authorities and respondent No.1 authorities was convened to arrive at logical conclusion.

¶27

From the above facts it is clear that the site where the work was supposed to be done was selected by respondent No.1 and there is no dispute with regard to the work done by the petitioner on the site indicated by respondent No.1. The reason for sudden stoppage of the work is that the development work has been started on the site without obtaining no-objection from its owner i.e. SECL, and it was for the respondent No.1. This being the position and also the fact that bills submitted by petitioner towards value of the work done was duly verified and certified by the Sub-Engineer and the Executive Engineer, this Court is of the view that the action of respondent No.1 in withholding the payment relating to bills of petitioner is not a justified action.

¶28

In case of ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-

¶29

“10…...on a given set of facts if a State acts in an

¶30

5

¶31

arbitrary manner even in a matter of contract, an aggrieved party can approach the court by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution and the court depending on facts of the said case is empowered to grant the relief.

¶32

It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once State or an instrumentality of State is a party to the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India…...”

¶33

In the above circumstances, the respondent No.1 is directed to release admitted bill amount towards the value of work done to the petitioner in accordance with law at the earliest, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶34

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

Certified copy as per rules.

¶36

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶37

roshan/-

Shri Gopal Singh v. the Municipal Corporation, Chirmiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Gopal Singh v. the Municipal Corporation, Chirmiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nirmala Devi Singh Vs Axis Bank Limited

Sanjay Dewangan and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation Raigarh and Anr.

Prem Prakash Yadav Vs State Bank of India

Brajkishore Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Usha Khare Vs Harpal Singh Chhabda

Brijkishore Pandey, Vs State of Chhattisgarh