Supreme Court Quashes Recovery Order Against Contractor — Violated Principles of Natural Justice.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved three appeals arising from orders of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which dismissed writ petitions filed by a partnership firm, M/s Awadhesh Singh Gautam, challenging a recovery order issued by the Executive Engineer of the Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency. The appellant was awarded contracts under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana, but after executing a portion of the work, they faced allegations of overpayment based on a technical audit. The Collector directed recovery of the alleged overpayment, leading to the issuance of a recovery order that blocked payments from ongoing contracts. The appellant contested this recovery order, arguing it was made without notice and violated contractual provisions. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the relief sought involved disputed questions of fact. The Supreme Court, however, found that the recovery order was not supported by any contractual clause and was issued without affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Court quashed the recovery order and directed the release of the withheld amount along with interest, while clarifying that this judgment did not affect any ongoing criminal proceedings or the merits of the alleged overpayment. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Headnote

A) Contract Law - Recovery Order - Validity of Recovery Order - Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, Section 146 - The recovery order was quashed as it was not traceable to any contractual clause and violated principles of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity was given to the contractor before recovery. Held that the recovery order was not legally sustainable (Paras 28-30).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the recovery order dated 27.09.2025 is traceable to the contractual clauses relied upon by the respondents and whether it satisfies the conditions prescribed by those clauses.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court quashed the recovery order dated 27.09.2025 and directed the respondents to release Rs.84,17,003 along with interest at 6% per annum from 27.09.2025 until actual payment.

Law Points

  • natural justice
  • recovery order
  • contract interpretation
  • technical audit
  • overpayment
  • cross-contract recovery
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (SC) (09) 104

Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 10464 of 2026)

2026-09-30

Alok Aradhe, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Gaurav Agrawal, Bishwajit Dubey

M/S Awadhesh Singh Gautam

State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Dispute regarding recovery of payments under government contracts.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought quashing of the recovery order and release of withheld payments.

Filing Reason

The recovery order was issued without notice and violated principles of natural justice.

Previous Decisions

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, stating the relief involved disputed questions of fact.

Issues

Whether the recovery order dated 27.09.2025 is traceable to the contractual clauses relied upon by the respondents. Whether the recovery order satisfies the conditions prescribed by those clauses and whether it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the recovery order was made without notice and violated contractual provisions. The State contended that the power of cross-contract recovery was permitted under the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The recovery order was not traceable to any contractual clause and violated principles of natural justice, as it was issued without notice or opportunity for the contractor to be heard.

Judgment Excerpts

The recovery order was not legally sustainable. The respondents are directed to release to the appellant the sum of Rs.84,17,003. This judgment shall not preclude the respondents from taking recourse to appropriate proceedings.

Procedural History

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant against the recovery order, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code: Section 146
  • Indian Penal Code: Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Enforcement Committee Decision in Textile Quota Fraud Case. Petitioner Found to Have Forged Visas and Fabricated Bank Realisation Certificates to Obtain Premium Quota.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal by Liquidator in Recovery Suit Against Bank for Wrongful Payment After Liquidation — Bank Liable to Pay Fixed Deposit Amount to Liquidator Despite Payment to Company Director After Winding Up.