M/S Psa Construction vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is maintainable. It reasoned that the petitioner had invoked the dispute redressal mechanism under Clause 24 of the tender document, and the competent authority had passed an order in favor of the petitioner, directing reimbursement of 6% of the total work value. The Court noted that no appeal was filed against this order, making the amount due undisputed. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Surya Constructions, which held that a writ petition is maintainable even in contractual matters when the State behaves arbitrarily and there are no disputed questions of fact, the Court found no dispute in the amount to be paid. The respondents had also admitted in their reply that they were considering the petitioner's claim. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to consider and finalize the petitioner's claim at the earliest, preferably within two months from the date of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s PSA Construction, was awarded a contract for road construction with a total value of Rs. 5452.07 lakhs. The petitioner completed the work within the stipulated period and received a work completion certificate. While most of the payment was made, the amount unaccounted for as GST remained unpaid. The petitioner invoked the Dispute Redressal System under Clause 24 of the tender document. The adjudicating authority, on August 11, 2020, directed respondent-5, the Executive Engineer, to pay the petitioner 6% of the total work value as GST, as per directives from the National Rural Infrastructure Development Agency. Despite this order, respondent-5 had not complied and sought permission to extend the payment limit. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking directions for compliance with the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the respondents contend that a disputed question of fact is involved, necessitating recourse to a civil court? 2. Whether the respondents are obligated to comply with the order passed by the adjudicating authority under Clause 24 of the tender document? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition is maintainable because no disputed questions of fact are involved, as the respondents have admitted in their reply that the petitioner is entitled to reimbursement of 6% of the total work value. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Surya Constructions vs. The State of UP and others and this Court's order in M/s Shreejikrupa Project Limited vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others. The petitioner contended that they had exhausted the dispute redressal mechanism provided in the tender document, and no other alternate remedy was available. They sought directions for the respondents to satisfy the order passed by the competent authority. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the adjudicating authority did not quantify the exact amount payable, thus involving a disputed question of fact. However, they did not dispute that the order passed by the executing authority under Clause 24 of the tender document had not been challenged and that they were in the process of considering the petitioner's claim as ordered.