KANCHAN CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s):-

(2.) The facts, in brief, as mentioned in the petition are that on 27/6/2025, R3 issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for the construction and repair of toilets in 116 schools across four Development Blocks in District Gariyaband. The Petitioner was awarded all 116 works on 5/8/2025 through separate work orders. On 5/12/2025, Dainik Bhaskar published a report alleging irregularities in the allotment and execution of the works. In response thereto, R2 issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 11/12/2025, warning that if the Petitioner's explanation was unsatisfactory, the executed work would be valued, tenders could be terminated, and recovery proceedings would be initiated. On 16/12/2025, the Petitioner submitted a detailed reply highlighting that the rainy season and adverse La Nia conditions immediately after issuance of the work orders had created logistical and safety challenges, resulting in unavoidable delays. Additional site- specific difficulties, including storage constraints, unreliable electricity supply, and thefts of materials, further impeded progress. The Petitioner also requested an extension of time, which was not considered. It is further contention of the Petitioner that despite the Petitioner's detailed response, R2 issued another SCN on 17/3/2026, which was delivered only on 2/5/2026, after the Impugned Order was passed and this Petition filed. It is further case of the petitioner that on 6/4/2026, without addressing the Petitioner's prior submissions, R2 issued the Impugned Order terminating 93 of the 116 work orders where work had not commenced, and directed recovery of Rs.45,85,284.00 within 15 days, failing which recovery through arrears of land revenue and attachment of property was proposed. On 19/4/2026, the Petitioner submitted a detailed representation seeking recall of the Impugned Order, which has not been considered till date, leaving the Petitioner without any opportunity for redress or compliance with natural justice, which compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner is ex facie arbitrary and unsustainable, as the Show Cause Notice dtd. 11/12/2025 was issued solely on the basis of a newspaper report published in Dainik Bhaskar, without any independent inquiry, verification, or application of mind by the concerned authority. The subsequent action culminating in the Impugned Order dtd. 6/4/2026 is further vitiated by non-compliance with the very procedure prescribed in the SCN itself, which specifically stipulated that a valuation of the executed work would be undertaken before arriving at any finding of deficiency or initiating recovery proceedings. Admittedly, no such valuation exercise was ever conducted. Moreover, no notice was issued to the Petitioner to remain present during the purported inspections carried out by various Block Education Officers, rendering the entire inspection process unilateral and contrary to the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the Impugned Order has further been passed in gross violation of fair procedure, as the alleged progress reports submitted by the various Block Education Officers, which form the sole basis of the adverse action, were never supplied to the Petitioner, nor was any opportunity granted to furnish a response or justification in relation thereto. The Petitioner was thereby denied an effective opportunity of hearing before severe civil consequences, including termination of 93 work orders and recovery of INR 45,85,284/-, were imposed. Additionally, the authority failed to consider the Petitioner's detailed reply dtd. 16/12/2025, wherein delays were specifically explained on account of continuous rainfall, adverse La Nia conditions, logistical constraints, lack of storage facilities, electricity issues, and theft of materials, along with a request for extension of time. The complete non-consideration of the Petitioner's explanation renders the Impugned Order arbitrary, non- speaking, and liable to be set aside.