Chattisgarh High Court
Contractor Abhisekh Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 November, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1/6
2024:CGHC:42616-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5447 of 2024
1 - Contractor Abhisekh Pandey S/o Rajesh Pandey Aged About 29 Years R/o
Ward No. 3 Th. Sitapur District- Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G., Through Power Of
Attorny Holder / Father- Rajesh Pandey S/o Late Awadh Kishor Pandey Aged
About 55 Year, R/o Ward No. 3 Th. Sitapur District- Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department, Of Public Health
Engineering Mantralalya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.
3 - Collector District - Surguja, District- Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G.
4 - Executive Engineer And Member Secretary Jila Jal Swachhta Mission
District- Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G.
5 - Superintendent Of Police District- Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G.
6 - Sub Divisional Office Of Police District- Surguja, Ambikapur, C.G.
7 - Station House Officer Of Police Station - Sitapur District- Surguja,
Ambikapur, C.G.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Baghel, Advocate
For Res./State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General
2/6
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
04.11.2024
1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Baghel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Contractor, is challenging the notices dated 09.09.2024 and 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-
1) issued by respondent No. 4 - Executive Engineer & Member Secretary, Jila Jal Swachhta Mission, District Surguja, Ambikapur whereby a direction has been issued to the petitioner / Contractor to complete work assigned in 26 different construction work site within 15 days, as well as cancellation of Agreement order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) whereby respondent No. -4 arbitrarily cancelled aforesaid work of 26 construction work orders/agreement holding that the petitioner has breached the terms & conditions of the contract.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner is 'B' class civil contractor and proprietor of firm named and styled as "We build Tomorrow" and is entitled to all the protection guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is in custody, as he is accused in connection with FIR bearing No. 219 of 2024 for the offence punishable U/s 323, 34, 365 of IPC and 3 (2-v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police-Station- Sitapur, District-Surguja on the allegation that on 6 th September 2024, a body was recovered by the police by demolishing a water tank in a village and since then it is being published in newspapers and social media that the 3/6 petitioner / contractor is an accused in aforesaid murder case. As a consequence, petitioner has made a complaint against Deepesh @ Sandeep at Police Station - Sitapur on 8 th June, 2024 regarding the theft of his cement and steels, after which he was absconding and his family members also reported him missing on June 16, 2024, on which the investigation was being done by the police. Subsequently, Sarva Adivasi Samaj Surguja organized a massive siege and protest in the police station till midnight, thereafter, FIR was registered with regard to the said incident by the police. During investigation, dead body was recovered on 6th September, 2024, thereafter a local MLA and other officials have publicly informed the media and social media that like other states, bulldozer action will be taken at the house as well as all the work allotted to the petitioner / contractor will be cancelled and all assets will be seized. Thereafter, on 07.09.2024, police of Sitapur Police Station kept in possession of all the vehicles of Petitioner- Firm, documents of contract, files, computer from the office and locked with seal office warehouse and construction site. Nagar Panchayat also tried to demolish the house to grant BULDOZR JUSTICE, but this Hon'ble court was kind enough to protect the house of the petitioner vide order dated 13.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 4657/2024. Consequently, on 09.09.2024 & 12.09.2024, respondent no-4 has issued notices to petitioner to complete all the tender work of 26 different construction work projects within 15 days. The notices have not been served to Contractor or his representative, however, the same has come in the knowledge through news paper. Thereafter, without valuation of the work, or without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent No 4 issued cancellation of agreement order dated 27.09.2024 for 26 work projects. All vehicles of firm which are not involved in crime, all documents, files of 4/6 the firm office is in the possession of police, the police has stopped bank transaction of petitioner / contractor and locked the office warehouse, work site with seal. The petitioner has already requested to Learned Sub divisional officer of police Sitapur, who is the concerned police authority to grant documents, files and vehicles and also requested to open the office and warehouse but till date same has not been done. The petitioner has also requested the Learned Executive Engineer who is the concerned authority to grant time to file reply of notice and complete work but till date same has not been done. The petitioner was ready to give reply and complete work but because all the relevant files and documents are in possession of police authority he is unable to give his reply. On one hand one authority is demanding reply and directing to complete work and on another hand another police authority has closed the office and kept documents without seizure as per criminal law. The power of Attorney holder has given an affidavit to demonstrate this fact. The bills for the work, which has already been done by the petitioner, have been withheld and payments have been stopped without any intimation. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the terms and condition mentioned in the agreement, the minimum 30 days time should be granted to complete the work whereas only time of 15 days has been granted to the petitioner to complete the alleged work. He would also submit that because of some political influence, the petitioner has been implicated in the criminal case and presently he is in jail and a copy of the Impugned FIR has also been annexed with this petition and in his absence, the impugned notices has been issued, therefore, this petition may be allowed and the the notices dated 09.09.2024 and 12.09.2024 issued by respondent No. 4 - Executive Engineer and Member 5/6 Secretary, Jila Jal Swachhta Mission, District Surguja, Ambikapur and the cancellation of agreement dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) may be quashed.
5. Mr. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent/State while opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is not clear from the pleadings of the petitioner that whether in the agreement, there was any arbitration clause or not, as the petitioner has not placed on record the copy of the agreement, which goes to show any arbitration clause. He would also submit that separate cause of action survives for each tender but the petitioner has challenged all the cancellation orders in this one petition, therefore, the order passed by respondent No. 4 is just and proper and need not to be interfered with.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having perused the material placed on record, particularly the submission made on behalf of learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State that separate cause of action survives for each tender process but the petitioner has challenged all the cancellation orders of the tender in this one petition; and also considering the fact that the agreement of each of the contract has not been annexed and arbitration clause in the said agreement has not been disclosed by the petitioner nor the full & complete agreement was annexed, therefore, we are of the considered view that the writ petition challenging all the cancellation orders is not maintainable and the impugned notices dated 09.09.2024 and 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by respondent No. 4 - Executive 6/6 Engineer & Member Secretary, Jila Jal Swachhta Mission, District Surguja, Ambikapur directing the petitioner / Contractor to complete work assigned in 26 different construction work site within 15 days, as well as cancellation of Agreement order dated 27.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) cancelling the contract of work of 26 different construction work orders/agreement holding that the petitioner has breached the terms & conditions of the contract has rightly been issued against the petitioner in view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
amita
Digitally
signed by
AMITA
DUBEY
Date:
2024.11.08
13:55:26
+0530