Basant Pandal House, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 3

¶2

2025:CGHC:53814

¶3

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 5723 of 2025

¶6

NAFR

¶7

Basant Pandal House, Through Its Proprietor Basant Banerjee S/o Manmohan Banerjee, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Ward No. 22, Sattipara Road, In-Front Of Chitramandir Sattipara, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Of Directorate Of Culture And Official Language Chhattisgarhi Culture Council, Nawagaon, Parsatti, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Director Directorate Of Cultural And Archaeology, Mgm Museum, Civil Lines, Near Raj Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

President/ Collector Archaeological Association, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶13

Collector Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶14

Deputy Collector Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

ORDER ON BOARD

¶19

04/11/2025

¶20

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

¶21

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 2 & 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and release the remaining bill amount of Rs. 3,30,631 with interest of 12% per annum in favour of petitioner.

¶22

10.2 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fir and proper may also kindly be

¶23

2 / 3

¶24

granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice along with cost of the petition.”

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is proprietor of Basant Pandal House, Ring Road, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja, C.G.. He provided tent and catering services and completed the work of arrangement on the direction of the concerned authority ie. Respondent No. 3 & 4 during ‘Ramgarh Mahotsav 2017’. The said services provided by petitioner was duly executed as directed by the authorities, which was verified by respondent authorities. Petitioner submitted bills towards the work done by him amounting to Rs. 4,96,195, out of which Rs. 1,65,564 has been paid. However, remaining amount of Rs. 3,30,631 of the bills has not been disbursed by the authorities till date. It is also pointed out that the concerned authority has also certified the work done by petitioner and its value. Petitioner submitted representation on 12.06.2023 and thereafter on 24.09.2024 to Respondent No. 4/ Collector, copy of which are also filed as Annexure P-3, however, no steps have been taken in this regard and no payment of the bills has been made to petitioner till date. He submits that the petitioner is entitle for the actual amount due against the work done and placed reliance upon the decision in case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ABL International Ltd. & Anr. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation

¶26

of India Ltd. & Ors , reported in (2004) 3 SCC 553 in support of his contention. He also submits that at this stage, as petitioner is facing financial crises, he may be permitted to submit fresh representation before respondents and a direction be issued to respondents authorities to consider the claim of petitioner at the earliest.

¶27

Learned counsel for respondents-State would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this petition on merits and is only seeking permission of this Court to submit fresh representation to be decided by respondents authorities in accordance with law, he is having no objection.

¶28

3 / 3

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition.

¶30

Considering the nature of grievance raised by petitioner and the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that bills submitted by petitioner for executing the work as directed by the authorities, is also certified by the concerned respondent-authorities and entire amount of the bills submitted by petitioner is not paid to him till date, without entering into merits on the claim of petitioner, I find it appropriate to dispose off this petition at this stage permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation before the respondents raising all his grievances as raised in this petition and in turn the concerned respondents shall consider and decide the representation in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision in case of ABL International Ltd. (supra). It is expected from the respondents that if the respondent -authorities come to conclusion, after due verification of the facts that petitioner has already executed the work as directed to him, then the respondents authorities shall disburse the undisputed amount of bills regarding the work done by petitioner at the earliest.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Certified copy as per rules.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

pwn

Basant Pandal House, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basant Pandal House, 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anpurna Women Self Help Group - Belgahana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bulaki Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajaram Yadav Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Gandhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shriram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sushila Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh