The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that when a statutory appeal against contractor licence demotion is pending and heard, judicial intervention is limited to directing expeditious disposal of the appeal; the High Court will not ordinarily entertain the writ on merits before the alternate remedy is exhausted. This judgment reaffirms the principle of exhaustion of alternate remedies for government contract and licence demotion matters and is binding on subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5167/2025 of ASHOK KUMAR MITTAL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010419342025 |
| Date of Registration | 24-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Government Contracts / Judicial Review |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court will entertain a writ petition challenging contractor licence demotion when a statutory appeal against the demotion order is already pending and heard, but not yet decided. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that since the petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against the demotion order, which has been heard and for which notice has been issued, but final orders are still pending, judicial propriety demands that the statutory remedy be exhausted. The limited relief that can be granted in the writ is to direct early disposal of the appeal according to law. The High Court will not adjudicate on merits when the alternate remedy is available and pending. The court directed the competent authority to decide the pending appeal within two weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to approach again if aggrieved by the appellate order. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, a Class ‘A’ contractor for the PWD, had his licence demoted to ‘Class B’ for alleged delay in project completion despite departmental acknowledgements of delay beyond his control (land acquisition, design, electricity lines, and a naxalite abduction incident). He filed an appeal against the demotion, which was heard but remained pending. Petition was filed seeking quashing of the demotion and permission to participate in future tenders. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and government authorities within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and sectoral tribunals in government contract/licence demotion matters |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that exhaustion of alternate statutory remedies is a prerequisite before invoking writ jurisdiction against government orders such as contractor licence demotion, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Writ relief will be limited to expediting pending statutory appeals, without interference on merits.
- Petitioners should pursue and await the outcome of statutory appeals before approaching the High Court for merits-based relief.
- Lawyers may cite this judgment to resist writ petitions where the appellant is seeking relief while a statutory appeal is pending.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the fact that the petitioner had already filed an appeal against the demotion order under the prescribed procedure, and the appellate authority had heard the matter and issued notice to the parties.
- The Court noted the absence of any exceptional grounds necessitating immediate interference by writ despite the availability of a statutory remedy.
- It was observed that the statutory remedy must ordinarily be exhausted, and the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass or pre-empt the statutory adjudication process.
- The Court accordingly restricted the writ relief to directing the competent authority to decide the pending appeal within a specified period, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek further legal remedy if aggrieved by the appellate order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Petitioner suffered demotion in contractor licence from Class ‘A’ to ‘Class B’ for alleged non-completion of projects.
- Claimed no default on his part; departmental communications acknowledged delays due to third-party reasons (electric lines, compensation delays, design delays, naxalite abduction of engineer).
- Asserted that despite a pending and heard appeal, no final order was passed, resulting in ongoing harm and exclusion from tenders.
Respondent (State):
- Stated that the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the competent authority, which would be decided within the stipulated time.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a Class ‘A’ contractor with the Public Works Department, was awarded a bridge construction contract in a naxalite-affected area. Delays in project execution occurred due to obstacles such as unresolved land acquisition, pending design drawings, high-tension power lines, and an abduction incident involving his engineer. Though these were acknowledged by the department, a notice was issued to the petitioner regarding non-completion, followed by an order demoting his licence to Class ‘B.’ An appeal against this demotion was filed, noticed, and heard, but not decided. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to set aside the demotion and restore his eligibility for future tenders.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment is premised on the principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies before invoking Article 226 writ jurisdiction.
- No specific statutory sections or administrative law provisions are interpreted in detail, but the requirement to exhaust available statutory appeals is upheld.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge, concurred with the Chief Justice; no separate reasoning provided.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court directed the competent authority to decide the pending appeal within two weeks, reinforcing the principle of timely disposal of statutory appeals in administrative matters.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Reaffirms that writ jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly where alternate statutory remedies are available and pending.