M/S Ag Construction Company vs. Ravi Bhagat, Ias And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s A.G. Construction Company, filed a contempt petition (COCP No.2718 of 2025) against Sh. Ravi Bhagat, IAS, and others for non-compliance with a previous order. The respondents, through an affidavit filed by Sh. Surinder Singh, Executive Engineer, PWD B&R, stated that a speaking order dated 13.11.2014 was passed. This order approved the 2nd running bill for ₹54,97,701, which was subsequently released on 11.11.2024 after statutory deductions, resulting in a net payment of ₹49,06,401. The 3rd running bill, initially claimed at ₹83,52,156 and later admitted as ₹18,76,548, was not due at the time of the speaking order as the work was not executed. The payment for the 3rd running bill had been processed and submitted for payment on 09.07.2025.

Held

The Court noted the submissions made by the learned State counsel, who, on instructions from the Executive Engineer, assured that the payment of the 3rd bill would be made within 10 days. In light of this assurance, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the contempt petition. The Court permitted the withdrawal with liberty to revive the petition if the payment was not made within the stipulated period. The contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the rule was discharged. The Court did not delve into the merits of the GST implications or the contractual disputes, as the matter was resolved through an undertaking by the respondents and the petitioner's decision to withdraw.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have complied with the court's previous order regarding the payment of bills submitted by the petitioner, specifically concerning the 2nd and 3rd running bills, as per the provisions of the relevant contract and GST laws. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with a prior court order. The core of their grievance is the delay or non-payment of the amounts due for the construction work performed. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through the Executive Engineer's affidavit, argued that they have acted in compliance. They detailed the processing and release of the 2nd running bill and explained the reasons for the delay in the 3rd running bill, stating that the work for the 3rd bill was not executed at the time of the speaking order and that the payment for the subsequently admitted amount of the 3rd bill has been processed.