Chattisgarh High Court
Shivkumar Khunte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:20108-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4427 of 2021
Shivkumar Khunte S/o Resham Lal Khunte, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village
Saragbundiya Pahanda District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Engineer In Chief, Public Works Department, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District :
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Raigarh Division District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
5 - M/s Abhishek Agrawal, Under The Proprietorship Of Vishnu Agrawal, R/o
Kotraroad Road, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN (Cause title taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.04 20:43:38 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30/04/2026
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for release of the alleged pending dues in respect of construction work of road from Rodopali to Bhalumuda including bridge, contending that despite completion of the work and submission of bills, the remaining payment has not been made; whereas, the stand of the respondent/State is that the contract was awarded to respondent No.5 and in absence of any privity of contract between the petitioner and the State, coupled with the allegation of unauthorized subletting of the work, no liability to make payment to the petitioner arises, and the dispute, if any, is purely contractual in nature.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to 3 clear all the remaining dues of the petitioner pending before the authorities.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities consider the case of the petitioner by way of representation submitted by him.
10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favor of the petitioner may kindly be passed."
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/Public Works Department had floated a tender for construction of road from Rodopali to Bhalumuda including bridge and culverts over a stretch of 1.40 kilometers in District Raigarh. The said tender was awarded in favour of respondent No.5, pursuant to which a formal agreement was executed between the department and respondent No.5 for execution of the said work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. ******* It is the case of the petitioner that since respondent No.5 was unable to execute the work, he engaged the petitioner for carrying out the construction work and an agreement dated 16.12.2020 was executed between them. According to the petitioner, he undertook and completed substantial part of the construction work within the stipulated time and, during the course of execution, submitted bills before the department from time to time. It is further pleaded that despite completion of the work and submission of final bills, the entire payment has not been released and only part payment has been made, leaving the remaining dues unpaid.
******* The petitioner submits that he repeatedly approached the 4 respondent authorities by submitting representations seeking release of the outstanding amount. Upon such representations, the department is stated to have initiated an enquiry and recorded statements of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5; however, no final decision for release of payment was taken. Aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the respondent authorities and claiming that the dues for the work executed by him have remained unpaid, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking a direction for release of the remaining payment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite execution of the construction work of road from Rodopali to Bhalumuda including bridge, the respondent authorities have failed to release the legitimate dues of the petitioner, thereby causing serious financial hardship. He would contend that the petitioner, though engaged by respondent No.5, had carried out the work to the satisfaction of the department and had been regularly submitting bills and representations, yet the respondents have arbitrarily withheld the remaining payment without any justifiable reason. It is further submitted that even after conducting inquiry and recording statements of the petitioner and respondent No.5, the authorities have not taken any decision for release of payment, which is contrary to the principles of fairness and natural justice. Learned counsel submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and unreasonable, and the petitioner cannot be left remediless merely on the ground of absence of direct contractual relationship, especially when the work has been executed and partly paid. It is thus prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to release the outstanding dues along with interest. He places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble 5 Supreme Court in Unitech Limited vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation and ABL International Ltd. vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. to contend that in appropriate cases involving arbitrariness, writ jurisdiction can be invoked even in contractual matters.
5. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 4 submits that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, as the contract in question was admittedly awarded in favour of respondent No.5 and there exists no privity of contract between the petitioner and the answering respondents. It is contended that as per the terms and conditions of the contract, particularly the clauses governing subletting, the contractor was not permitted to assign or sublet the work without prior approval of the competent authority, and in the present case no such approval was ever obtained; therefore, any alleged arrangement between the petitioner and respondent No.5 is dehors the contract and not binding on the department. It is further submitted that the department is under no legal obligation to make payment to a third party, and the claim of the petitioner, if any, arises out of a private agreement with respondent No.5, which constitutes a purely civil dispute involving disputed questions of fact. Hence, the appropriate remedy lies before the competent civil court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On these grounds, it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.
6
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST) and Others passed in Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023 vide judgment dated 19.05.2023 held as follows :
"48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can 7 cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. (See: Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC
489).
52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. The court ordinarily should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway, would not be in public interest.
Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot of time and also loss to the public 8 exchequer to the tune of crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. This is evident from a three- Judge Bench decision of this Court in Association of Registration Plates v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2005) 1 SCC 679.
53. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. It can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest 9 and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should interfere.
54. As observed by this Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, that while invoking power of judicial review in matters as to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind that evaluations of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial functions and principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes."
8. Upon perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Motors Limited (supra), as the Apex Court has categorically held 10 that judicial review in contractual and tender matters must be exercised with great restraint and only in cases where clear arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality is demonstrated, in the present case, no such exceptional circumstance is made out. The undisputed position is that the contract in question was awarded to respondent No.5 and there exists no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent/State authorities. The claim of the petitioner is founded upon an alleged private arrangement with respondent No.5, which is dehors the original contract and not binding upon the department. The dispute raised by the petitioner pertains to non-release of alleged dues arising out of such arrangement and involves disputed questions of fact, including execution of work, extent of work done, and entitlement to payment, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The scope of judicial review in contractual matters being limited, and no arbitrariness or illegality having been established on the part of the respondent authorities, the present petition is misconceived and not maintainable, leaving the petitioner at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent forum in accordance with law.
9. Therefore, the present petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved