Chattisgarh High Court
M/S R.K. Enterprises vs Chhattisgarh State Industrial ... on 22 August, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:42632-DB
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
ANWAR Date:
2025.08.23
11:34:19
+0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4512 of 2025
1 - M/s R.K. Enterprises A Proprietorship Through Its Power Of
Attorney Mr. R.K. Roy S/o Late H.L. Ray, Aged About 62 Years, For
Proprietor Mrs. Vandana Roy W/o Shri R.K. Roy Office Address
Vandaniya Vv-46, Parthivi Province Integrated Township, Province
Sarona, Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G. ).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation ( A
Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking ) Through- Its Managing
Director, First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road, No. 1 Telibandha,
Raipur District- Raipur ( C.G. ).
2 - The Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Industrial
Development Corporation First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.
1, Telibandha, Raipur District- Raipur ( C.G. ).
2
3 - The Regional Project Director National Highways Authority Of
India ( C.G. ).
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rahul Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
22.08.2025
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel for the
respondent no. 1 as well as Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Govt.
Advocate, learned counsel for the Respondent/State and
Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 3.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for
following reliefs:-
"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call
the entire records of the case pertaining to the loan
agreement availed by the petitioner.
10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash
the impugned communication dated 02.05.2025
(Annexure P/12).
10.3. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the
respondents to release the 20% withheld amount from
the final bill amounting Rs. 9,49,000/- and the amount
of security deposit amounting Rs. 1876810/- with
commercial rate of interest.
10.4. To grant any other relief which the Hon'ble court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice."
3. The respondent no.1 entered into agreement with the
petitioner for execution of contract namely "Providing and
Laying of DI Pipe Line for Shifting of existing Pipe Line of
CSIDC along the National Highway (NH- 30) at Industrial
Area Phase-I and Phase-II Raipur (C.G.)" and work order to
this effect was issued on 10.03.2021. According to the
Specifications of Items the petitioner executed the work
with receipt of five running account bills. The Sixth and final
bill was prepared on 03.06.2024 but to the utter surprise the
release of final bill amount was only 80% of the final
amount and 50% of the security deposit amount which
ought to have been released with final bill was also not
released. According to the terms of agreement the entire
security amount ought to have been released within four
months after final bill. Thus an amount of Rs.9,49,320/-
which amounts 20% of final bill has been withheld as also
an amount of Rs. 18,76,810/- towards security amount have
been withheld, hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents have illegally and arbitrarily withheld the 20%
amount from the final bill and have illegally withheld the
security deposit of the petitioner. It is further contended
that the acts of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary in so
far as the respondents are contradicting their own stand as
on the one hand they are accepting the design effect and
have decided to replace the pipeline with specifications
provided in the contract agreement with the pipeline of
specifications advised by the expert consultants and on the
contrary is alleging the petitioner that the petitioner has not
completed the work because testing part falls in the scope
of work and the petitioner has not completed the testing
part. He further submits that that the respondents have
illegally withheld the due amount of the petitioner and are
unjustly and unfairly justifying their illegality by shifting the
onus upon the petitioner in the garb of testing of pipeline
whereas it is manifest that the testing is not possible in the
existing circumstances which has arisen due to the fault on
the part of respondents. The petitioner is not responsible
for the defects in the design nor is petitioner responsible for
the flow of drain and sewerage water along with the
industrial units water. The petitioner is not responsible for
the accumulation of water up to height of one metre in the
culvert. He further submits that the petitioner has been
illegally and arbitrarily deprived from the due amount of
contract therefore the respondents are obligated under law
to release the withheld amount and the withheld security
deposit with commercial rate of interest on such amount.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and pointed out that arbitration clause exists
for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner and without
taking recourse to the same, approached this Court by filing
this writ petition.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned order and other documents appended with
the writ petition.
7. There is an arbitration clause No. 28, which reads as
under :-
"Arbitration Clause :
Clause 28 - Except as otherwise provided in this
contract all question and dispute relating to the
meaning of the specification designs, drawings and
instruction herein before mentioned as to thing
whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the
contract designs, drawings, specifications, estimate,
concerning the works, or the execution of failure to
execute the same, whether arising during the progress
of the work or a after the abandonment there of shall
be referred to the E.D./M.D. for his decision, within a
period 30 (thirty) days of such an occurrence(s)
thereupon the E.D./M.D. shall give his written
instructions and/or decisions, after hearing the
contractor and Executive Engineer within a period of
15 (fifteen) days of such request. This period can be
extended by mutual consent of parties.
Upon receipt of written instructions or decisions of
Executive Engineer, the parties shall promptly proceed
without delay to comply such instructions or decisions.
If the Executive Engineer fails to give his instruction or
decisions in writing within a period of 15 (fifteen) days
or mutually agreed time after being requested and /or,
if the party(es) is/or aggrieved against the decision of
the Executive Engineer, the aggrieved party may within
30 days prefer an appeal to the E.D/M.D. who shall
afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard
and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The
Managing Director will give his decision within 30
(thirty) days or such mutually agreed period.
If any party is not satisfied with the decision of the
Managing Director he can file the petition for resolving
the dispute through arbitration in the arbitration
tribunal.
A reference to arbitration tribunal shall be no ground
for not continuing the work on the part of the
Contractor. Payment as per original terms and
conditions of the agreement shall be continued by the
Executive Engineer in accordance with clause - 8
above.
8. From perusal of the above arbitration clause, it appears that
the petitioner has an alternate remedy available under the
arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement executed
between the petitioner and the respondents.
9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties, further considering the arbitration clause of
the agreement executed between the parties, so we do not
find any good ground to entertain this writ petition.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable
to be and is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved
in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other
alternate remedies available to him under the law, if so
wishes. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Shoaib
