;f- t' .—"•»,ft ^^j :y / -^^M^ i~"^y vL^l ^ Kon'bte Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Vs. 3. Santosh Singh Thakur, aged 34 years, S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad Thakur, Contractor Class-C, Municipai Councii, Baioda Bazar, R/o Civil Lines, Baloda Bazar, District- Raipur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, Mantralaya, DKS Shawan, Raipur (CG) Municipal Council; Baloda Bazar through its President, Municipal Council, Baloda Bazar, Dlstrict Raipur (CG) The Chjet Municipal Officer, Municipai Council, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (CG) Present: Shri R.K. Kesharwani,.counsel for the petitioner. Shri UNS. Deo, G.A. forthe State. 1~ g»'y (14.03.2011) The petitioner by the instant petition has prayed iowina reliefs:- a. May kindly be pieased to call for, the entire records pertaining to the construction/beautification & electnficatiQn of the Ramsagar Tatab &. Peeparaha Talab situated at Baioda Bazar, District Raipur for its kind perusal. b. May kindly be p!eased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to '*<.1. the respondent No.3 for returning back the security amount with 12% interest per annum. c. May kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 for payment of the invested amount done by the petitioner in construction of the works. d. Any other re!ief as the Hon'ble court may be deemed fit and proper. e. Cost of petition may be awarded. BlsstSBffi^ ^:^?^?^^ 2. Shri R.K. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered Class-A/3 contractor of Pubtic Works Department. A work of construction/beautification & electrification of 2 ponds situated at Baloda Bazar was awarded to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 and work order was issued. However, he was served with a notice on the complaint of some interested parties directing him to maintain the quality of the materiai as the quality of the material was not good. The petitioner replied to the same notice and informed that the quality of the work has been rectified as per the directions of the Architect. However, he was served with a notice (Annexure P-5) dated 5/4/10 repeating earlier directions. By this notice, he was further directed to stop the work until further orders. The quaiity of the work executed by the petitioner is up to the mark as would be evident from the memo of President of IVIunicipal Council, Baloda Bazar (Annexure P-6) addressed to respondent No.3. f-fowever, respondents are neither allowing the petitioner to complete the work nor he is being paid bills against the Work executed by the petitioner. Even security deposit is not being released. In these circumstances, a direction may be issued to the respondent No.3 for payment of invested amount in the work as well as for release of amount of security deposit with interest of12% perannum. -^- 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings in the writ petition and the documents appended therewith. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction to the respondents to settie his claim against the respondents arising out of the contract work awarded to him in a tender process. The dispute involved in this petition is purely a private contractuai dispute between the parties arising out of the contract work awarded to the petitloner. 5. It is settled law that scope of interference in a contractual dispute is very timited and it is not open to judicial scrutiny unless the alleged act is arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. 6. In the instant petition, the grievance of the petitioner is non- settling of the claim of the petitioner for the work executed by him and release of security deposit. The aforesaid dispute cannot be gone into in writ proceedings and it is open to the petitioner to approach the competent forum for redressal of his grievances raised in this petition. Priya 7. With these observations, the instant petition is disposed of. Sd/- nciraMishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar