Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:3811-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 6221 of 2025

¶6

1 - Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o P.L. Mittal Aged About 59 Years Occupation - A Class Contrator R/o - Main Road Korba P.S. and Tehsil Korba, District - Korba (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.)

¶12

4 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Circle Civil Lines District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Engineer-In-Chief, Public Works Department, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

Digitally signed byMOHAMMEDAADIL KHAN Date: 2026.01.2919:32:45 +0530

¶17

2

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents-State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 22-01-2026

¶22

The present writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 11-11-2025 (Annexure-P/1) and 14-07-2025 (Annexure-P/2) and prayed the following relief(s):-

¶23

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the order dated 11/11/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Respondent No.6.

¶24

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to setaside the order dated 14/07/2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Respondent No. 2 demoting the petitioner’s contractor Licence from Class ‘A’ to Class ‘B’.

¶25

10.3 That any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶26

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Class contractor with unique ID No.CGeR01707 . The respondent No.1 issued a tender for construction of H.L. Bridge at Indrawati river in KM 1/8 on

¶27

3

¶28

NH-30 to Khadakghat road under the supervision of P.W.D. Bridge Division Jagdalpur. The petitioner was also participated and declared L1. The work order was issued on 21-10-2022 and the total period under the work order for completion of work was 25 months. Due to high tension electricity lines, huge number of trees, illegal encroachment etc. the construction of project was obstructed time to time and when the petitioner intimated the difficulties to the respondent department, they made a communication on 07-01-2025 that the encroachments from the proposed site have been removed, high tension electricity wires have also been removed and and drawing has been issued on 14-02-2025. As the respondents issued the work order without clearing site having knowledge of dense forest and naxalite affected area. Considering the difficulties, the respondent No.3 extended the period of completion of work uptill 31-10-2026 vide its letter dated 12-03-2025. On 24-02-2025 the respondent No.3 submitted the revised drawing before the respondent No.2 for increasing the length of the bridge and then the petitioner was also directed to submit revised decision. The respondent No.4 forwarded it to respondent No.3 on 27-02-2025. The petitioner’s work for construction of bridge was running in its schedule with the object to complete it before 31-10-2025. All of sudden a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 1405-2025 issued by respondent No.4 and he was directed to show cause as to why the work has not been completed which was obtained by the petitioner and why his category of licence should not be demoted. The said show cause notice was replied by the petitioner on 28-05-2025

¶29

4

¶30

assigning the reason and difficulties which he felt in the area. It has also been replied that the petitioner asked for police protection so that the work can be carried out smoothly, but no heed was given to his request. He duly explained the delay in construction work in the district Korba, District Raipur, however vide order dated 14-07-2025 the respondent No.2 demoted the contractor licence of the petitioner from Class ‘A’ to Class ‘B’. the petitioner made his representation on 17-07-2025 and he was heard on 06-08-2025, but the authorities have not decided his representation and then a WPC No.5167/2025 was filed by the petitioner before this Court. The said writ petition, WPC No.5167/2025 has been disposed of vide order dated 16-10-2025 reserving the liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to law if aggrieved by the order passed by the authorities.

¶31

On 18-11-2025 the respondent No.5 wrote a letter to the department that no prior permission was obtained for clearing the work site, land acquisition proceedings were also not completed and therefore, for the fault of P.W.D. the petitioner cannot be held liable. The respondent authorities has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that he failed to complete the work within the stipulated timeframe and also there is arbitration clause and the petitioner had to approach the C.G. Madhyastham Adhikaran. Considering the lapses on the part of the department, a date of completion of the work again extended from 11-11-2025 to 31-10-2026, however, since the category of the licence of the petitioner is demoted from ‘A’ to ‘B’ he cannot

¶32

5

¶33

participate in the tender other than Public Works Department, therefore, he filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order.

¶34

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the arbitrary exercise of powers by the authorities would amounts to civil death to a contractor. There was no clause in the work contract that if the petitioner fails to comply with the work contract the category of his licence should be demoted. The petitioner is constrained to work in core naxalite area which is dense forest and various clearance like forest clearance, environmental clearance etc. are required despite the difficulties he run his project in time to achieve the target of cut off date, but it is the fault of the department that they asked for revised plan. He would further submit that considering the difficulties time to complete the work is extended upto 31-10-2026 and there is no reason for reduction of the category of licence. The department itself has considered that there are difficulties about the land proceeding, clearing the work site and other clearance, yet the petitioner has been punished by reduction of his category of licence. The demotion of the category of licence amounts to punishment for no fault of the petitioner when the authorities themselves extended the time which amounts that the petitioner was not at fault, yet the category of licence has been demoted which is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders may be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to upgrade the petitioner’s contractor licence from Class ‘B’ to Class ‘A’.

¶35

6

¶36

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that due to oversight and bonafide mistake of the authorities concerned, the work of the petitioner as considered as deficit and the explanation of work with respect to Asna Khadakghat and completion certificate of bridge of Lakhna Champaran is also oversight by the authorities and the impugned orders have been issued. He would also submit that there are certain difficulties with respect to construction of Asna Khadakghat bridge as certain hindrance in shifting electric high voltage pole, land acquisition and removal of encroachment and therefore, the time was extended to complete the work to October, 2026. He would also submit that with respect to bridge on Jhora Kodiya Ghat the said work has been completed though it was completed after due date, but the delay caused due to trees standing on site which could not be removed in time and an extension was also granted uptil 31-12-2025. The mistake has been committed due to oversight of relevant records which is bonafide.

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition.

¶38

There are two parts of the punishment order dated 14-07-2025, one is slow work in the construction of Asna Khadkghat project and demotion of category of contractor licence from Class ‘A’ to Class ‘B’. The relevant part of the order dated 14-07-20225 is reproduced herein below:-

¶39

"वि�चारोपरान्त Jh v'kksd dqekj वि�्ቈल, "अ" �्ቇ�ठेकेदार] कोरबा्ቛ ारा CGRIDCL योजनान्त्ቇ�तजिजला&बस्तरकेअन्त्ቇ�त NH-30, आसनासेखडकघाट�ा्ቇ�केविक-�ी-

¶40

7

¶41

1/8 परइं्ቖा�तीनदीपर mPpLrjh; सेतुविन�ा�णकाय� (अनुबंध्ቅ . 12/DL-202223) की्ቚ्ቇ तितअत्यन्तधी�ीए�ं vlekuqikfrd gksus rFkk काय�कोपूण�करने�ें fo'ks"k रुतिचनहीं fy;s tkus ds dkj.k छ.्ቇ . शासन, लोकविन�ा�णवि�भा्ቇ �ं्ቔालय रायपुरकेआदेश्ቅ - ,Q 5&8/19/ 2013/विनवि�दा, विदनांक 29.10.2014 �ेंसंyXu विदशा-विनद7शकीकंतिडका 7,2(II)(b) के rgr~ muds पंजीयन (आई.डी. ्ቅ�ांक CGeRO1707 विदनांक 16.08.2024) को mDr अनुबंतिधतकाय�पूण�होनेतक "ब" ्ቦेणी �ेंपदा�नत (Demote) विकयाजाताहै।"

¶42

The return has been filed by the respondent/State stating therein that due to oversight of the relevant documents certain orders have been issued by the authorities concerned which is bonafide mistake. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant part of the return filed by the respondents/State which reads as under:-

¶43

“8. It is respectfully submitted that the work of Raipur Lakhna Champaran was complete and a completion certificate was issued by the department on 02/07/2025, however, on account of oversight and bonafide mistake, this was erroneously included as a deficit work attributed to the petitioner. That the oversight of the extension of work with respect to the Asna Khadakghat and completion certificate of bridge of Lakhna Champaran is purely unintentional and bonafide.

¶44

It is further submitted that with respect to Asna Khadakghat Bridge, it is respectfully submitted that as there were certain hindrances such as electric high voltage pole shifting, land acquisition, removal of encroachment, therefore, extension was given to the petitioner to complete the said work up till October, 2026. Departmental order 18/11/2025 issued by the

¶45

8

¶46

Superintendent Engineer [Annexure P/14], whereby, completion of work has been extended till 31/10/2026. It is most respectfully submitted that since the order of extension dated 18/11/2025 has been passed after order dated 14/07/2025 [Annex. P/2] as well as order dated 11/11/2025 [Annex. P/1] it could not be considered by the concerned authorities before passing the orders of annexure P/1 and P/2.

¶47

With respect to the bridge on Jhora Kodiya Ghat it is submitted that the bridge has been completed and there was some delay because of some trees on one side, i.e., towards Jhora and those trees could not be removed. It is further submitted that upon examination of records it emerged that with respect to the Jhor Kodiyaghat bridge that has been granted an unpenalized extension till 31/12/2025 for completion of work vide order dated 25/06/2025. It respectfully submitted that on account of unintentional and bonafide mistake this fact was overlooked by the respondent authorities.”

¶48

It is also relevant to quote the relevant contents of the memo dated 18-11-2025 (Annexure P/14) which reads as under:-

¶49

“fo"k;kafdr dk;Z dk dk;kZns’k fnukad 21-10-2022 dks tkjh fd;k x;kA vuqca/kkuqlkj fuekZ.k dk;Z dks iw.kZ djus gsrq 25 ekg o"kkZ_rq lfgr 1 ekg fjd.M vFkkZr fnukad 20-12-2024 rd fu/kkZfjr FkhA orZeku esa fuekZ.k dk;Z izxfrjr gSA

¶50

bl dk;kZy; }kjk iwoZ esa fofHkUu dkj.kksa tSls Hkw&vtZu dh dk;Zokgh esa foyac] vcVesaV ,1 dh vksj vfrdze.k gksus ds dkj.k] pyns;dksa ds Hkqxrku esa foyac] MªkbZax fMtkbZu ds vuqeksnu esa foyac ds dkj.k ftlls lger gksrs gq;s bl dk;kZy; ds }kjk izFke le;o`f) i= dz- 646@lk-@jk;iqj fnukad 27-02-

¶51

9

¶52

2025 }kjk fnukad 21-12-2024 ls fnukad 31-10-2025 rd vuqca/k dh dafMdk 1-13-1 ds rgr fcuk fdlh naM ds le;o`f+) iznku dh xbZ FkhA

¶53

fdUrq foHkkx }kjk fn;s x;s le; esa dk;Z iw.kZ ugh fd;k x;k gSA dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark yks-fu-fo- lsrq laHkkx txnyiqj ds i= dz2199@vads@txnyiqj fn- 28-10-2025 ds ek/;e ls fnukad 01-11-2025 ls fnukad 31-10-2026 rd vuqca/k dh dafMdk 1-13-1 ds rgr fcuk fdlh naM ds le;of) iznku djus dh vuq’kalk dh xbZ gSA le;of) izdj.k gsrq lquokbZ fnukad 14-11-2025 dks fu;r dh x;h ftlesa dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark ,oa Bsdsnkj }kjk viuk dFku izLrqr fd;k x;kA

¶54

izdj.k ds ijh{k.k esa ik;k x;k gS fd gkbZVs’ku fo|qr rkj dk vkt fnukad rd foLFkkiu ugh gqvk gS rFkk txnyiqj dh vksj dk;ZLFky esa Hkw&vtZu dh dk;Zokgh fnukad 13-08-2025 dks iw.kZ dh x;h gS ftl dkj.k dk;Z dh xfr izHkkfor jghA pfyr ns;dks dk Hkqxrku le; ij u gksus ds dkj.k ,oa bl o"kZ cLrj {ks= esa vR;kf/kd o"kkZ gksus ds dkj.k Hkh dk;Z dh xfr izHkkfor jgh gSA vksiu Qkm.Ms’ku gsrq CykfLVax dh vuqefr fnukad 09-04-2024 dks izkIr gqbZ ijarq ekg ebZ esa unh ij ikuh dk Lrj vR;kf/kd gksus ds dkj.k Qkm.Ms’ku dk dk;Z ugh fd;k tk ldk ftl dkj.k Hkh dk;Z dh izxfr izHkkfor jgh] tks fd ekU; ;ksX; gSA

¶55

vr% fn;s x;s dkj.kksa rFkk dk;Zikyu vfHk;ark yks-fu-fo- lsrq laHkkx txnyiqj }kjk dh xbZ Li"V vuq’kalk ls lger gksrs gq;s 'ks"k cps gq;s fuekZ.k dk;Z dks Ikw.kZ djus esa gks jgs gsrq Bsdsnkj dks nks"kh u ekurs gq;s fnukad 01-112025 ls fnukad 31-10-2026 rd vuqca/k dh dafMdk 1-13-1 ds rgr fcuk fdlh naM ds le;of) iznku djus dh Lohdfr nh tkrh gSA Lohdr le;of) dk vkns’k vius Lrj ij tkjh djsaA”

¶56

When the respondents/State have admitted that due to oversight of the documents the orders have been issued and ultimately the time to complete the work of Asna Kadakghat bridge was extended upto October, 2026 and they have considered the difficulties in providing the proposed site as certain hindrance in shifting of high voltage electricity

¶57

10

¶58

poles, land acquisition and removal of encroachment, the petitioner cannot be held liable for causing the delay in completing the work. Considering the difficulties, the respondents/State have extended the time of completion of he work repeatedly and it cannot be said that the petitioner is at fault that he is not completing the work in time. From the return filed by the State it is clear that due to oversight of the document by the authorities the said orders have been passed which has been ultimately corrected by issuing the extension order of time to complete the work.

¶59

Once the substantive part of the order has been considered by the authorities that due to oversight of the document the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and for that reason his category of licence was demoted. Once, it has been observed that the petitioner is not at any fault and it is the mistake on the part of the respondent authorities, the category of licence cannot be demoted from category ‘A’ to ‘B’ which amounts to punishment for his fault. Certainly he shall be debarred from participating in further tender process under the licence of category ‘A’ which amounts to its civil death. The appellate authority while deciding the appeal of the petitioner also has not considered and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner could not completed the various work allotted to him at different places and he could avail remedy of arbitration clause and therefore, his category of licence was demoted is also appears to be erroneous. When the authorities have considered that the petitioner is not at any fault and there are reasons for delay in completion of the work, however, the petitioner has completed the work

¶60

11

¶61

allotted to him and there is no substantial delay in completing the work. Further, the period for completion of work was extended upto October, 2026 which itself amounts that there is no fault of the petitioner. The said order of extension of time was passed on 18-11-2025, i.e., after passing of the order dated 11-11-2025 (Annexure-P/1) despite the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities have extended the time to complete the work without any fault, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

¶62

12 Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for interference to quash the impugned orders, Annexure-P/1 and P/2. Consequently, the order dated 11-11-2025 (Annexure-P/1) and order dated 14-7-2025 (Annexure-P/2) are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed . No order as to cost.

¶63

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

¶64

Aadil

Ashok Kumar Mittal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Mittal 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

Kesari Verma Vs Devprasad Patel

Netram Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhay Barua Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gajendra Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Dushyant Khosla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Itwari Bhaskar Vs State of Chhattisgarh