M/S Anil Buildcon (INDIA) Private Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

M/s Anil Buildcon (India) Private Limited (the petitioner) was awarded a work contract for the construction of an Astroturf Hockey Ground for Rs. 463.23 Lakhs by the Department of Sports and Youth Welfare, Raipur. The petitioner completed the work, including some extra works, and received a work completion certificate on September 20, 2019. However, an amount of Rs. 58 Lakhs plus GST for the extra work remained unpaid. The petitioner made several representations. Respondent No. 3, the Executive Officer of the Public Works Department, Division No. 2, Bilaspur, informed the petitioner that steps were being taken to obtain approval for the outstanding amount from the Department of Sports and Youth Welfare. The petitioner contended that the extra work was undisputed and sought a direction for its consideration and payment within a specified time.

Held

The Court noted that the respondents had not raised any objection regarding the quality or quantity of the work completed by the petitioner, as evidenced by the work completion certificate dated September 20, 2019. The respondents themselves admitted in their pleadings that some extra work was done which exceeded the budgetary allocation, and that the process for administrative sanction was underway. Considering that the tender was floated by the respondents and the work was executed under their supervision and control, the Court found it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim in accordance with the law and release the undisputed amount for the work expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receiving the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authorities are liable to consider and release the undisputed claim of the petitioner for extra work done, amounting to Rs. 58 Lakhs plus GST, within a specified time frame, as per the contentions of the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the extra work amounting to Rs. 58 Lakhs was not disputed by Respondent No. 3. They contended that Respondent No. 3 should be directed to consider this undisputed claim and pass a speaking and reasoned order within a specified period. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the State counsel, stated that they are merely the executing department. The work was awarded by the Department of Sports & Youth Welfare, Raipur. They clarified that the sanctioned amount for the original tender has been paid. However, the extra work exceeded the budgetary allocation, necessitating administrative sanction, which was pending before the concerned department. They assured that the amount would be released upon receiving the budgetary sanction.