Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge, which directed the appellants to make payment for the work completed by the respondent. The court held that the State cannot deny payment for work done under a valid work order, even if procedural irregularities were committed by the concerned government officer.
Brief Facts:
Respondent No.1 was awarded a contract by the Water Resources Department for providing and erecting three informative overhead signboards and other related civil works. The contract stipulated a completion period of 45 days, and the respondent successfully completed the project within the stipulated time. However, at the time of making the payment, an objection was raised by the government authorities, stating that the then Executive Engineer had not obtained prior sanction from higher authorities before awarding the contract. Due to this, the payment was withheld. Aggrieved by this action, the contractor filed a petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. The present writ appeal has been filed by the State challenging this order.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge was legally flawed. An Executive Engineer was not authorized to award work exceeding Rs. 50,000/- without calling for tenders or obtaining approval from higher authorities. The appellants argued that the Single Judge failed to consider the illegality of the work order and requested that the order be set aside.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the appeal was devoid of merit and merely an attempt to delay compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent contended that any procedural lapses by the Executive Engineer were a matter between the government and its officer and could not be a justification for non-payment to the contractor.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the learned Single Judge had correctly applied the principles of administrative law by holding that a government authority cannot withhold payment from a contractor for work completed under a validly issued work order.
The Court observed that if any procedural irregularity had been committed by the concerned Executive Engineer, it was the responsibility of the State Government to take action against him, but such irregularities could not be used as ground to deny payment for the completed work. The Court said that in an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned orders.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, dismissing the writ appeal, held that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh vs. Baba Vishwanath Construction & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Case No.: WRIT APPEAL NO: 123/2025
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
Advocate for the Respondents: Dr. Sudeep Agrawal
Picture Source :
