Ashok Kumar Mittal vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr.

Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present application seeking extension of time for completion of work in compliance of direction and undertaking given by the petitioner before this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026 in W.P.C. No. 2455 of 2026. He made the following prayer in the application:-

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, being the proprietor of a proprietorship firm engaged in construction work, was awarded the work of construction of a multi-storey building comprising 516 houses, along with internal water supply, sanitation, electrification and other infrastructural facilities, under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) at Durg, pursuant to an agreement dated 15.02.2018 executed with the respondent Municipal Corporation, Durg. The petitioner had earlier challenged the order dated 29.04.2026, whereby the contract was terminated, and the petitioner was blacklisted for an indefinite period. This Court, while disposing of W.P.(C) No. 2455 of 2026 on 14.05.2026, had kept the operation and effect of the said order in abeyance till 30.09.2026, on the petitioner's undertaking to complete the remaining work within the stipulated period and the respondent authorities extending necessary cooperation. The petitioner has been diligently executing the work at the site and that the progress of construction is monitored on a daily basis by the third-party Project Management Consultant appointed by the respondent Municipal Corporation. Approximately 90% of the project has already been completed, and only 10% of the work remains outstanding. It is submitted that the petitioner is conscious of the undertaking furnished before this Court and the consequences stipulated in paragraph 13 of the order dated 14.05.2026; however, the remaining work could not be completed within the stipulated period owing to administrative hindrances attributable to the respondent authorities and circumstances beyond the petitioner's control.

Learned counsel would further submit that the external electrification work, constituting approximately 2.5% of the total project work, cannot be undertaken until the requisite demand note is issued and the necessary payment is remitted by the Municipal Corporation to the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL). Similarly, the road work, constituting approximately 2% of the total project work, remains held up due to non-approval of the requisite plan and drawings, while the water supply work, constituting approximately 4% of the total project work, cannot proceed in the absence of approval of the relevant map and drawings by the respondent authorities. It is submitted that the finishing work, constituting the remaining 1.5%, can be completed only after the aforesaid infrastructural works are completed. The petitioner has repeatedly approached the Municipal Corporation through written representations seeking removal of these impediments, but no effective response has been received. Learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the delay is not attributable to any wilful default or lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner. It would also submit that the petitioner's 13th running bill, amounting to approximately Rs. 1.30 crore, has remained unpaid since 2024. The petitioner has continued to execute the project by deploying his own financial resources, but the non-release of the outstanding payment has caused serious financial constraints and difficulties in arranging the requisite construction materials and labour for completion of the balance work. It is contended that, despite the specific direction contained in paragraph 14 of the order dated 14.05.2026 requiring the respondent authorities to extend necessary cooperation and ensure that no administrative hindrance is caused, the petitioner has been prevented from completing the work within the stipulated period due to the non-fulfilment of the corresponding obligations by the respondent

authorities. 4. He would lastly submit that the present application has been filed before expiry of the period granted by this Court, seeking an extension of three months to enable the petitioner to complete the remaining work. It is submitted that, if the extension is not granted, the order of termination and indefinite blacklisting dated 29.04.2026 would automatically revive in terms of paragraph 13 of the order dated 14.05.2026, thereby causing irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioner, particularly when approximately 90% of the project has already been completed. Accordingly, learned counsel would pray that, in the interest of justice and to facilitate completion of the public housing project, the time granted by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026 be extended for a further period of three months, subject to such conditions as this Court may deem appropriate.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, Municipal Corporation, Durg. would oppose the application by submitting that the time granted by this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026 was extended solely on the basis of the specific undertaking furnished by the petitioner to complete the remaining work on or before 30.09.2026, which undertaking was expressly made part of the order. It is submitted that the petitioner, having obtained the benefit of keeping the order of termination and blacklisting in abeyance on the strength of his own undertaking, cannot now seek a further extension merely on the ground that the work could not be completed within the stipulated period. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner was fully aware of the nature and extent of the remaining work and the time available for its completion when he furnished the undertaking before this Court. The petitioner is, therefore, bound by the terms of the undertaking, and any failure to comply with the same attracts the consequences expressly stipulated in paragraph 13 of the order dated 14.05.2026. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot seek modification or extension of the time limit as a matter of course, particularly when the earlier order was passed on the basis of his own undertaking. Accordingly, learned counsel would pray for dismissal of the application.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the application.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, Municipal Corporation, Durg, and upon perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that the petitioner had earlier challenged the order dated 29.04.2026, whereby the work order was terminated, the agreement was cancelled, and the petitioner was blacklisted for an indefinite period. During the proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 2455 of 2026, the petitioner voluntarily furnished an undertaking by way of an affidavit dated 14.05.2026, assuring this Court that the remaining work would be completed on or before 30.09.2026. The contents of their affidavit/undertaking dated 14.05.2026 are as under:-

Acting upon the said undertaking, this Court, vide order dated 14.05.2026, kept the effect and operation of the impugned order in abeyance till 30.09.2026. At the same time, paragraph 13 of the said order specifically provided that, in the event of failure to complete the remaining work within the stipulated period or breach of any undertaking furnished before this Court, the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 would automatically revive, leaving it open to the respondent authorities to proceed further in accordance with law and the terms of the agreement. Thus, the relief granted to the petitioner was expressly conditional upon compliance with the undertaking furnished by him.

The submission of the petitioner is that approximately 90% of the work has been completed and the remaining work could not be finished owing to administrative impediments, including the non-issuance of the requisite demand note for external electrification, non-approval of the plans and drawings for road and water supply works, and non-payment of the 13th running bill amounting to approximately Rs. 1.30 crore. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner furnished the undertaking dated 14.05.2026 with full knowledge of the stipulated deadline and the nature of the contractual obligations. The petitioner had also referred to the earlier extensions of the completion. period granted by the respondent authorities till 31.07.2026 and subsequently till 30.09.2026. Having voluntarily undertaken to complete the work within the extended period, the petitioner was required to make the necessary arrangements to fulfil that commitment. Although paragraph 14 of the order dated 14.05.2026 required the respondent authorities to extend necessary cooperation and avoid administrative hindrances, the allegations regarding non-cooperation and the pending payment, by themselves, do not automatically entitle the petitioner to a further extension of time. The petitioner was required to substantiate the alleged impediments and demonstrate their effect on his ability to comply with the undertaking, particularly when the consequences of non-compliance had been expressly stipulated in the earlier order.

It is a settled principle that a party who obtains relief from a court on the basis of an undertaking is expected to honour the same, and the terms of a judicial order cannot be disregarded merely because compliance has subsequently become difficult. In the present case, the petitioner had already obtained the benefit of keeping the termination and blacklisting order in abeyance for the period specified by this Court, on the strength of his own undertaking. The Court cannot ordinarily permit repeated extensions in disregard of an express condition incorporated in its earlier order, particularly when the stipulated period was itself granted on the petitioner's assurance. The fact that a substantial portion of the work has been completed, though relevant, cannot by itself override the binding nature of the undertaking and the specific consequences prescribed for its breach.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly considering that the petitioner had undertaken to complete the remaining work on or before 30.09.2026, this Court is not inclined to grant a further extension of three months. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

It is, however, clarified that the consequences flowing from paragraph 13 of the order dated 14.05.2026 shall operate in accordance with the terms of the said order, subject to any remedy available to the petitioner in law.