1 / 7 2025:CGHC:21577-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2488 of 2025 Jain Advertisers, A Proprietorship Firm, Its Sole Proprietor Namely Smt. Maya Jain, W/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain, Aged About 54 Years, R/o T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.), Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Namely Nirmal Kumar Jain, S/o V.S. Jain, Aged About 58 Years, R/o T.P. Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Korba, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Korba Saket Bhawan, ITI Chowk, Korba, District Korba C.G. 3 - The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Korba Saket Bhawan, ITI Chowk, Korba, District Korba C.G. 4 - Hoarding Superintendent/incharge, Municipal Corporation Korba Saket Bhawan, ITI Chowk, Korba, District Korba C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No.2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.05.13 14:40:57 +0530 2 / 7 Per, Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 09/05/2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 /State & Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for Respondents No2 to 4. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 1] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 (Annex. P/1), passed by Commissioner Municipal Corporation Korba bearing File No./Revenue/Three/2025-26/2148 may kindly be set-aside and contract awarded to the petitioner firm for installation of hoardings for the purpose of advertisement for a period for 5 years (from 15.09.2023 to 14.09.2028 Annex.P/11) may kindly be allowed to continue till its expiry. 2] That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the Municipal Corporation Korba may further be directed to permit the petitioner firm to continue with the contract till its expiry. 3 / 7 3. The brief facts of this case are that respondent Municipal Corporation issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 25.05.2023 (second call) for installation of the hoardings for the purpose of advertisement for a period of 5 years. The petitioner firm has participated in the tender proceedings for the works specified in Serial No. 2, 3 4, 5 & 6 of the Notice Inviting Tender. The petitioner firm was successful bidder and was awarded the contract for Pariwahan Nagar Zone, Kosabadi, Pandit Ravishankar Zone, Darri Zone, Sarvamangla Nagar and Bakimongra Zone (so far as Balco zone is concerned the petitioner firm was found successful, but the site was not handed over and the entire process for that zone was cancelled and amount has been returned). On 14.07.2023 the order of allotment was issued for all the 4 zones and the petitioner firm was directed to deposit sum of Rs. 4,01,460/- for Zone Darri, Rs. 9,56,060/- for Zone Kosabadi and Pt. Ravishankar, Rs. 7,64,848/- for Pariwahan Nagar Zone and Rs. 2,41,872/- for Sarvamangla Nagar and Bakimongra Zone. In pursuance of the allotment letter, the petitioner firm was directed to furnish the promise bond as well as agreement on non-judicial stamp of Rs. 100/-. The petitioner firm has executed the said bond for all 4 zones, and then entire amount as directed in the letter of allotment was also deposited, which comes to Rs. 18,10,822/- (for one year/first year) for 15.09.2023 to 14.09.2024. 4. After one year the Municipal Corporation has enhanced the rate upto 5% of the earlier contract amount and the petitioner has 4 / 7 deposited the amount to the tune of Rs. 18,17,024/ for second term i.e. for 15.09.2024 to 14.09.2025. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in the instant case neither any show cause notice was issued nor Clause No.58 of the tender document has been given effect to and even invoking of Clause No. 54, 55 & 57 is arbitrary and the said clauses cannot be attracted, taking into consideration the allegations as contained in the impugned order. The said clauses deals with the altogether different situations. 6. The impugned order has been passed alleging that, the petitioner firm is taking the amount for advertisement on the higher side. It is very unfortunate that, not a single notice has been issued to the petitioner firm even not a single copy of complaint has been disclosed or furnished to the petitioner firm, even clause No. 58 of the Notice Inviting Tender, which safeguarded the interest of the petitioner firm has not been followed. 7. The petitioner has filed the instant petition alleging that all of sudden the General Body meeting dated 27.03.2025 was convened and the resolution was passed for cancellation of the contract/tender and the said decision was communicated to the Commissioner. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 has been passed by the Commissioner, whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner firm has been cancelled without issuance of any show-cause notice. 5 / 7 8. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that before cancellation of the tender/contract, no show cause notice was issued, no opportunity of hearing was afforded, even the copy of the complaints were never supplied to the petitioner firm, no enquiry was conducted and therefore, the impugned decision being illegal and arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further argued that as per the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender, neither any notice was issued nor any opportunity was afforded. Even the Clause No. 17 of the tender document has not been followed and no notice was issued. It has been further argued that the contract was awarded for a period of 5 years and the petitioner firm has invested the huge amount and even has paid the huge amount to the Municipal Corporation in advance for second term and now on certain baseless allegations and without affording an opportunity of hearing the impugned order has been passed. It has been further argued that the Commissioner Municipal Corporation has wrongly invoked, Clause No. 54, 55 & 57 of the Notice Inviting Tender and has committed gross illegality in passing the impugned order. It has been further argued that the Commissioner has not applied its mind and only on the basis of the decision of the general body based upon the political influence has passed the impugned order. The contract was awarded by the Commissioner, but merely on the basis of the decision of the general body, the harsh decision has been taken. It has been lastly argued that without 6 / 7 issuance of any show cause notice, affording any opportunity of hearing, supplying the material of allegations, the contract has been cancelled which is unreasonable, arbitrary and also contrary to the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender itself. 9. Per contra, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate as well as Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for Respondents No.2 to 4 do not dispute the fact that the notice was not issued to the petitioner before the contract was terminated. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 11. It is an admitted fact that the order of allotment was issued for all the 04 zones on 14/07/2023 for carrying out the work of installation of the hoardings for the purpose of advertisement for a period of 05 years to the petitioner firm and on 02/05/2025 the said contract has been cancelled without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 12. It is settled law that the order having civil consequences cannot be passed against the person concerned without issuing any show-cause notice or providing opportunity of hearing. (See: Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & others1 and Murlidhar Gautam Vs. State of M.P. (now CG) & others2) 13. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 02/05/2025 passed by the Municipal Corporation, 1 AIR 1994 SC 2480 2 2008 (3) CGLJ 288 7 / 7 Korba, whereby the contract awarded to the petitioner firm for installing hoardings for the purposes of advertisement has been cancelled, is hereby quashed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent concerned to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ashu