HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 6543 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Apoorva Tewari and Sri Akshat Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel assisted by Shri Namit Sharma and Ms. Annapurna Agnihotri, for Lucknow Municipal Corporation, i.e respondent nos. 1 to 5 and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers: "(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition ; 2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the show cause notice dated 30.04.2025 issued by the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 as contained in Annexure No.2 to this writ petition ; 3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent to allow the petitioner to carry out the work in accordance with the terms of the work order dated 12.03.2025 and the contract." 3. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court earlier, the respondent nos.2 to 5 i.e., all the four Officers namely, Sri Manoj Prabhakr, Chief Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Apoorva Tewari, Akshat Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Namit Sharma, Annapurna Agnihotri, Ashish Kumar, Lalta Prasad Misra M/S Hyderabad Integrated Msw Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Md. Zeeshanul Haque .....Petitioner(s) Lucknow Municipal Corporation Thru. The Municipal Commissioner And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Engineer, Lucknow Municipal Corporation-respondent no.2 ; Shri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Executive Engineer, Zone-3, Lucknow Municipal Corporation- respondent no.3 ; Shri Rampal, Executive Engineer, Zone-6, Lucknow Municipal Corporation-respondent no.4 and Shri Sanjeev Pradhan, Environmental Engineer, Lucknow Municipal Corporation are present today before this Court. 4. The Officers, i.e. respondent nos. 2 to 5 present in court today have tendered their unconditional apology repeatedly, with regard to their conduct as noticed by this Court in its earlier orders. We are of the view that show cause notice, if any, has been issued to them by the Additional Chief Secretary, State of U.P. may be disposed of by taking into consideration such apology tendered before this Court. 5. In response to the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Lucknow Municipal Corporation earlier, the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of a tender notice published on 23.11.2024 in daily hindi newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ the petitioner had applied and being fully eligible was declared successful and letter of intimation dated 18.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner. He submitted the performance bank guarantee and complete ‘Drawings’ required for the purpose of execution of contract works by 20.02.2025. The contract agreement was sent to the petitioner on WhatsApp number of the authorised representative which was signed and submitted to the respondents on 27.02.2025. 7. It is the petitioner’s case that it had requested for early hand over of the sites so that the work for setting up Fixed Compactor Transfer Stations (‘FCTS’) and Portable Compactor Transfer Stations (‘PCTS’) at 12 locations in the city of Lucknow is carried out in accordance with the timeline prescribed in the contract. There was difficulty with regard to some sites particularly, Yadav Loha Bhandar and Mashalchi Tola near Harding Bridge/Pucca Pul and this fact was brought to the notice of the respondents as earlier as on 04.03.2025. The respondents issued a work order on 12.03.2025, which was sent to the petitioner on its WhatsApp number on 20.03.2025. The petitioner commenced work for construction of the contracted structures at Akbari Gate in Zone-06 WRIC No. 6543 of 2025 2 and Akhilapur Zone-03 on 07.04.2025. The respondents thereafter passed an order on 09.04.2025 terminating the work order and the agreement. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition (C) No.3731 of 2025 challenging such termination order. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 25.04.2025 setting aside the order dated 09.04.2025 and granting three days’ time to the respondents to issue proper show cause notice proposing cancellation of contract. The petitioner had to submit its reply within the next five days on receipt of such notice. 9. It has been submitted that the show cause notice was not issued within time as prescribed by the Court and this fact has been noticed by this Court in its earlier orders dated 11.07.2025 and 24.07.2025 respectively, and an explanation was called for from the Officers concerned. The explanation was not forth coming on the date fixed by the Court hence, a direction was issued by this Court to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Department concerned to hold an enquiry and take appropriate action against the Officers involved by its order dated 07.08.2025. 10. When the matter was taken up on 21.08.2025, Dr. L.P. Mishra, appearing for the respondents had pointed out that a fresh counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit has been filed explaining the delay in issuance of show cause notice and also explaining the circumstances in which affidavit could not be filed within time as granted by this Court in its earlier order. 11. Time was sought by learned counsel for the petitioner to submit reply to the supplementary counter affidavit and the matter has come up for hearing today before this Court. Today, the affidavits are on record. 12. We have gone through the affidavits and we find that the dispute centres around non-handing over of certain sites near Yadav Loha Bhandar and Mashalchi Tola free of encroachment to the petitioner. Certain work has been done by the petitioner on other vacant sites which has been handed over which the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that almost 50% of the contracted work, this has had been seriously disputed by Dr. L.P. Mishra, who says that only certain already existing structures have been refurbished and painted. No new constructions have come up. WRIC No. 6543 of 2025 3 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out rejoinder affidavit filed today wherein there are photographs of new constructions done at various places. 14. We do not wish to enter into this controversy at this stage as the original contract and work order issued to the petitioner had granted it 365 days to complete the contract. 15. We put a specific query to Dr. L.P. Mishra, that if this Court affirms the order passed by the respondents which is challenged in the writ petition and uphold the cancellation of contract, how much time it would take for the respondents to issue a fresh E-tender/notice inviting tender and enter into contract with new bidders. 16. Admittedly, it would take almost two months time to finalise such contract again with a new person. 17. Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel has also produced before this court written instructions that is letter sent by Chief Engineer-respondent no.2 on 25.08.2025 to him, saying that in case, the petitioner completes the work of Package-III and the proposed PCTS and FCTS are constructed in accordance with the original work order issued in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with the specifications as given in the work order/agreement within one year as initially proposed, the writ petition may be disposed of in the said terms. Such letter dated 25.08.2025 is kept on record. 18. We find that the work of cleaning the city would be stalled for another two months. 19. The petitioner is willing to submit fresh ‘Drawings’ of Fixed Compacted Transfer Stations to the Environmental Engineer, i.e. respondent no.5 giving details of proposed construction including material to be used for such construction within 15 days from today. 20. The Environmental Engineer/any other Engineer, designated by the respondent no.2 shall approve such ‘Drawings’ within a week thereafter and communicate such approval on WhatsApp of the petitioner’s Authorized Signatories, of such ‘Drawings’ and communicate suggestions, if any. WRIC No. 6543 of 2025 4 21. Since there is a specific pleading made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no Engineer has been designated till date in terms of the Definition Clause in the contract, the respondent no.2 shall designate ”Engineer” as per the Definition Clause, who will be responsible for approving the ‘Drawings’ and supervising the work being done by the petitioner. 22. Since it has also been stated that the respondents have not handed over a copy of the signed contract till date to the petitioner, the Chief Engineer is directed to ensure that signed copy of the contract is given to the Authorized Signatory of the petitioner latest by 16.09.2025. 23. The respondent no.2 shall also ensure that the two aforesaid sites on which there is a dispute regarding encroachment made by private persons shall be delivered to the petitioner within three weeks i.e. latest by 16.09.2025. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to complete the work for all 12 Fixed Compacted Transfer Stations and Portable Transfer Stations on the location as ear-marked for them as per the work order issued to them on 12.03.2025. 25. The show cause notice dated 30.04.2025, since it has not respected the time-line as provided by this Court in its order dated 25.04.2025, is quashed. The consequential order dated 17.05.2025 passed by respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 is also quashed. 26. The writ petition is disposed of. August 26, 2025 Pks WRIC No. 6543 of 2025 5 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench