Chattisgarh High Court
M/S D.C. Construction vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:12598-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 1158 of 2026
M/s D.C. Construction Through Partner Shri Hari Shankar Rathore, S/o
Dev Charan Rathore, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Parijat Extension Nehru
Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Atal Nagar Nawa
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Engineer (Central Tendel Cell) Office Of Engineer In Chief
P.W.D. Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Collector District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
5. Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Sarguja Range, District
Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh
6. Superintendent Engineer Publics Works Department, Ambikapur
Circle, District Ambikapur Surguja Chhattisgarh
7. Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Surajpur Division,
District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
8. Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Sub-Division
Digitally
signed by
Prem Nagar, District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh
BRIJMOHAN
BRIJMOHAN MORLE
...Respondent(s)
MORLE Date:
2026.03.17
17:56:17
+0530
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 17.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record from the respondents' authorities pertaining to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside impugned orders dated 11.02.2026 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 30.12.2025 (Annexure P/15) issued by respondent No. 7, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to quash/set aside impugned notice inviting tender (Annexure P/17) issued by respondent No. 3, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to restore the agreement (Annexure P/8) and work order (Annexure P/9) and also to extend the due date mentioned therein as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit and appropriate, in favour of petitioner, in the interest of justice."
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Executive Engineer i.e. respondent No. 7 terminated the tender vide order dated 30.12.2005. It is contended that the authority competent to pass the impugned order has not exercised the power vested in it independently and in accordance with law. Rather, the impugned order of termination appears to have been passed on the dictates or recommendation of the Chief Engineer, which is impermissible in law, as the statutory authority is required to exercise its own independent judgment while taking such decisions.
4. It is further submitted that the ground assigned in the termination 4 order, namely disproportionate or unsatisfactory progress of the work, cannot by itself constitute a valid basis for termination under Clause 3 of the Agreement governing the contract between the parties. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the said clause specifically provides a mechanism for dealing with delay or slow progress in execution of the work, including grant of extension of time, either with penalty or without penalty, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Advocate, termination of the contract on the aforesaid ground is arbitrary and contrary to the contractual stipulations. However, learned State counsel submits that the aforesaid grounds have not been specifically pleaded in the present writ petition and, therefore, the same cannot be considered at this stage.
5. In view of the said objection, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition raising all relevant grounds and incorporating complete and appropriate pleadings and reliefs.
6. In light of the submissions made by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- for having filed the petition in a casual manner and thereby wasting the valuable time of the Court. The said amount shall be deposited by the petitioner before the Registry of this Court, and the receipt shall be produced at the time of filing any fresh petition. The 5 amount so deposited shall be transmitted to the Government Special School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra, District Bilaspur (C.G.).
7. Certified copies of the documents annexed to the petition, if any, may be returned to the counsel for the petitioner after retaining photocopies thereof.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan