M/s Netram Sahu vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010330592026 2026:CGHC:38765-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
by ANURADHA
TIWARI
Date:
2026.09.03
10:27:10
+0530
ANURADHA
TIWARI
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCC No. 822 of 2026
M/s Netram Sahu Registered As Class-B Contractor, S/o Late Shri
Shyam Lal Sahu, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Sambalpur, Post
Singhola, District- Rajnandgaon, (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchyat And Rural
Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Civil And
Revenue, District- Raipur, (C.G.)
2 - The Engineer In Chief (Tender Cell) Chhattisgarh Rural Road
Development Agency (CGRRDA), Vikas Bhawan, Gandai, (C.G.)
3 - The Collector Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai
(C.G.)
4 - The Executive Engineer Cum Member Secretary P.I.U. No.1,
Chhattisgarh Rual Road Development Agency (CGRRDA), Khairagarh,
District-Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai, (C.G.)
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel,
Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
02.09.2026
1. Heard Mr. T.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant as well as
Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing
for the State.

2
2. The present MCC has been filed for modification of the order
dated 20.07.2026 passed in WPC No.3744 of 2026 with the following
relief:-
“Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to the order as to
extend the time from the 1st November 2026
to December 2026 for completing the tender
work bearing no. 15-303 under Pradhan
Mantri Janman Yojna, contract no.
336/PIU/2023-2024, by allowing this
application in the ends of justice. ”
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the
order dated 20.07.2026, the petitioner was granted further time till
20.08.2026 to complete the remaining work under the concerned
contract. It is submitted that thereafter the respondents issued a notice
whereby road construction work was to remain closed from June to
15.10.2026, on account of which the petitioner could not commence and
complete the remaining work within the time granted by this Court. It is
further submitted that only the asphalt/bitumen work (damarikarana)
remains to be completed, while the petitioner has already undertaken
and completed the road repairing and maintenance work, and is ready
and willing to complete the remaining work at his own risk. He further
submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation
seeking extension of time from 01.11.2026 till the end of December,
2026, undertaking to complete the remaining work within the extended
period. It is also submitted that the payments/bills for the work already

3
executed by the petitioner have not yet been sanctioned and released,
causing financial hardship to him. In these circumstances, and
considering that the petitioner is ready to complete the remaining work
within the extended period, learned counsel prays that the order dated
20.07.2026 may kindly be modified to the limited extent of extending the
time for completion of the remaining work from 01.11.2026 till the end of
December, 2026, in the interest of justice.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the document relied upon by learned counsel
for the applicant as Annexure P-3 is neither any order nor any
notification issued by the competent authority. It appears to be merely a
WhatsApp conversation and, therefore, cannot be relied upon for
seeking modification of the order passed by this Court. It is further
submitted that at the time of passing of the order dated 20.07.2026, no
submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the
alleged rainy season or any consequential impediment in execution of
the work. Thus, there is no ground warranting modification of the order
dated 20.07.2026.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, we
find that the ground now sought to be urged by the petitioner,
particularly with regard to the alleged closure of road construction
activities during the rainy season, was not brought to the notice of this
Court at the time when the order dated 20.07.2026 was passed. The

4
order dated 20.07.2026 was passed after considering the submissions
advanced by the parties and, taking into account the circumstances
then prevailing, the petitioner was granted one further and final
opportunity to complete the remaining work within a period of one
month, i.e. up to 20.08.2026. In such circumstances, the subsequent
material relied upon by the petitioner does not furnish sufficient ground
for modification of the aforesaid order in the present proceedings.
6. It is also evident that the document relied upon by the petitioner
as Annexure P-3 does not appear to be a formal order or notification
issued by any competent authority, and its nature and legal effect
cannot be adjudicated upon in the present miscellaneous application.
The prayer made in the present MCC, in substance, seeks extension of
the period granted by this Court under its order dated 20.07.2026 on the
basis of subsequent events and disputed factual circumstances. Such a
prayer, in the facts of the present case, cannot be granted by way of
modification of the earlier order. We, therefore, find no sufficient ground
to modify or extend the period stipulated under the order dated
20.07.2026. Accordingly, the present MCC stands dismissed .
7. However, dismissal of the present MCC shall not preclude the
petitioner from taking recourse to such remedy as may otherwise be
available to him in law, if so advised, in respect of any subsequent or
independent grievance, including any grievance arising out of any
subsequent action of the respondents or any impediment allegedly
caused in execution of the remaining work. If such proceedings are

5
instituted, the same shall be considered by the competent forum in
accordance with law and on their own merits. It is made clear that this
Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of any such fresh
grievance or on the rights and contentions of the parties in respect
thereof.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu