Siddharth Geo Consultants INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Siddharth Geo Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur seeking a direction to the respondents (State of Chhattisgarh and its officials) to release outstanding payments totaling ₹11,32,800/-. This amount is attributed to work completed under a work order issued in 2019, with ₹7,28,650/- against Invoice No. GST/09/19-20 and ₹4,04,150/- against Invoice No. GST/03/20-21. The petitioner alleged that despite completing the work and submitting bills, the respondent authorities had neither considered the claim nor disbursed the payment. The petitioner also sought interest on the withheld amount. The State did not object to the petitioner's limited prayer.

Held

The Court, having heard both parties and perused the record, acknowledged that the work order was issued in 2019. In the interest of justice, the Court directed the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the concerned authorities within 15 days of receiving the order. The concerned authorities were then directed to consider this representation and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within 45 days of receiving the representation. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim and that the competent authority would make an independent decision. The petition was disposed of with these directions. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the outstanding amount of ₹11,32,800/- to the petitioner, considering the petitioner has completed the work and submitted bills. 2. Whether the respondents should be directed to pay interest at 18% per annum on the withheld amount from the date it fell due until the actual date of realization. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they had duly completed the work as per the work order and submitted all relevant documents. However, the respondent authorities failed to consider their claim and disburse the payment. The petitioner sought immediate release of the outstanding amount and interest. The petitioner also submitted that their grievance would be redressed if liberty was granted to file a representation before the concerned authorities, with a direction for those authorities to consider it and decide in accordance with law. Respondents' Arguments: The learned counsel for the State stated that they had no objection to the limited prayer made by the petitioner.