Contractor Abhisekh Pandey S/o Rajesh Pandey aged about 29 Years Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:1883-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 140 of 2025

¶6

1 - Contractor Abhisekh Pandey S/o Rajesh Pandey Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Th. Sitapur District - Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.) Through Power Of Attorny Holder / Father Rajesh Pandey S/o Late Awadh Kishor Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o Ward No. 3 Th. Sitapur District - Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Public Health Engineering Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Collector And Chairman District Water And Saniatation Mission Of Surguja District - Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Executive Engineer And Membar Secretary District Water And Saniatation Mission Of Surguja District - Ambikapur District - Surguja (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhand Pratap, Adovcate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G.

¶14

Division Bench:

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board

¶16

2

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

13.01.2025

¶19

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following prayer:-

¶20

This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 i.e. Chairman and Member Secretary District Water and Saniatation Mission of Surguja, Dist- Surguja (CG) to consider and decide petitioner’s submitted dispute for decision under Clause 29 of the Work Agreement (AnnexureP/8).

¶21

Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant one opportunity to petitioner to complete remaining work.

¶22

This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside retender notice of water supply scheme under Jal Jeevan Mission for village Bisharpani, Block- Mainpat, Dist- Surguja (Annexure-P/9).

¶23

Any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.

¶24

The brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleading of the writ petition as well as documents annexed with the same, it appears that this is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner has filed a writ petition (C) No. 5447/2024 before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 04.11.2024. The said order dated 04.11.2024 was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing the SLP (C) No. 27559 of 2024 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2024 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to invoke the remedy under the Arbitration Act as the contract between the parties have Arbitration clause. Thus, after

¶25

3

¶26

invoking the Arbitration Clause the present petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, minimum 30 days time should be granted to complete the work whereas only 15 days have been grated to the petitioner to complete the awarded work. Due to some political influence and also for the reason of pending criminal cases against the petitioner, he could not complete the allotted work and therefore, vide notices dated 09.09.2024 and 12.09.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer and member Secretary, Zila Jal Sawachhata Mission, Dist- Surguja, Ambikapur cancelled the agreement dated 27.09.2024 for which he is raising dispute. After dismissal of the writ petition by this Court, he challenged the order dated 04.11.2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in which the liberty to invoke the remedy under the Arbitration Act was granted to the petitioner. After dismissal of the SLP (C) No. 27559/2024 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 22.11.2024, the petitioner moved his representation for invoking of the Arbitration Clause on 02.12.2024 and raised his claim before the Chairperson/Collector, Sarguja, Ambikapur, District Water Saniatation Mission, Surguja, Ambikapur as per the document (Ex.P/8). As provided under Clause 29 of the work agreement dated 27.09.2024. The said representation of the petitioner dated 02.12.2024 send by him through registered AD post was duly received by the respondent no. 2 but till date no decision has been taken on his representation and therefore, this petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider and decide the petitioner’s request made under Clause 29 of the agreement.

¶28

4

¶29

On the other hand learned counsel for the State though opposes the merits of the case but have not objected on the submissions for direction to the authorities to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously.

¶30

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, further considering that in compliance of the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 27559/2024 dated 22.11.2024, the petitioner moved his representation to 02.12.2024 before the competent authority/respondent no.2 invoking the Arbitration Clause no. 29 of the agreement dated 27.09.2024. The authority concerned is under obligation to take a decision expeditiously as the agreement between the parties have already been cancelled and the allotted work was with respect to the Water and Saniatation Mission which relates to public health. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to direct the authority concerned to decide the pending representation of the petitioner dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P/18) in expeditious manner and to make all endeavour to take a decision in it preferably within one week from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with law.

¶31

With this observation, the petition is disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law if he feel aggrieved by the decision taken by the authority concerned on his representation.

¶32

Sd/-	Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)	(Ramesh Sinha)
Judge	Chief Justice

¶33

Sagrika

Contractor Abhisekh Pandey S/o Rajesh Pandey aged about 29 Years v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Contractor Abhisekh Pandey S/o Rajesh Pandey aged about 29 Years v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dulesh Mrig Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Malti Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Golu @ Ramkhilawan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh