[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
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)
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
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
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
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
