Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development Authority

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The Petitioner's counsel, at the outset of the hearing, sought leave to withdraw the writ petition to avail appropriate remedy. The counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 stated that they had no objection to this prayer. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court also made an observation that the Petitioner, if advised, would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. No specific findings were made on the issues raised, nor was any relief granted on the merits of the claims regarding GST reimbursement or outstanding work value. The operative direction was solely to dispose of the petition as withdrawn.

Facts

The petitioner, Vandemataram Projects Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 (Raipur Development Authority) and Respondent No. 3 (Chief Engineer, Raipur Development Authority) to reimburse a sum of Rs. 8,57,23,677/-. This amount comprised Rs. 7,48,86,815/- towards Goods and Services Tax (GST) paid by the petitioner during the execution of a work awarded under a specific work order and agreement, and Rs. 1,08,36,462/- towards outstanding value of work certified under several running account bills. The petitioner also sought interest on this sum and, in the alternative, a direction for the respondents to decide their representation dated 31.08.2026 by a reasoned order. The petitioner's counsel, at the outset, sought leave to withdraw the writ petition to avail appropriate remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 to reimburse the sum of Rs. 8,57,23,677/-, comprising Rs. 7,48,86,815/- towards GST and Rs. 1,08,36,462/- towards outstanding work value, in terms of clause 41[a] of the Conditions of Contract and Circular No. 9388/8004/2017/18 dated 21.12.2017? 2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interest on the aforesaid sum? 3. Alternatively, whether the Petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 3 to decide the Petitioner's representation dated 31.08.2026 by a reasoned and speaking order? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner sought reimbursement of GST paid and outstanding work value, citing specific contractual clauses and a circular. They also sought interest and an alternative prayer for a decision on their representation. Respondents' Contention: The Respondents' counsel had no objection to the Petitioner's prayer to withdraw the writ petition.