1 2025:CGHC:22421-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2680 of 2025 M/s Graceful Media India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Utkal Ranjan Purohit, S/o Shri Hrishikesh Purohit, Aged 44 Years, Address- S.F. 22, 23, 24, Block- A, Geekay, Milestone, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through Its Commissioner, White House, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent (Advertisement), Municipal Corporation, Raipur, White House, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2 9 .0 5 .202 5 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the matter in hand. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders to quash/set aside the impugned order, dt. 26/03/2025 Annexure P/8 and order dt. 24/04/2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent no. 02. 10.3 May kindly be pleased to quash the impugned cancellation of the tender award the appropriate compensation to the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case, as per the petitioner, are that the respondent authorities published a notice inviting tender for erection of Unipoles throughout the city of Raipur, enumerating terms and conditions necessary. The petitioner participated in above mentioned tender and a corporation rate was decided vide letter dt. 21/02/2024. The petitioner deposited 30% of the duly agreed tender amount of Rs.18,42,000/- (Eighteen Lacs and Forty Two Thousand) before the respondent no. 02 on 07/03/2024. Thereafter, an agreement was executed; the petitioner organization was given a work order dated 15/03/2024 by the respondent no. 02, for the installation of new Unipole structures and display of advertisements through them at various important places in the city area of Raipur such as Saksharta Chowk, Anupam Garden and Telibandha Chowk. Immediately after issuance of the work order the petitioner raised difficulties with 3 regard to start the work but on account of the declaration of the Municipal elections, the Municipal Authorities were not resolved the difficulties and ultimately, after completed the election process, the petitioner preferred a written letter on 15/06/2024 to respondent authorities pointing out issues arising in erection of the Unipoles and requesting to get it resolved. Since no heed was paid by the respondents, the petitioner kept on writing letters on numerous occasions, requesting to resolve the issue so that the Unipoles could be installed. Despite frequent request of the petitioner, the respondent despondently failed to address the issues and arising in construction of Unipoles, meanwhile, directed the Chhattisgarh Samvad to stop the receivable payments vide letter, dt. 20/12/2024. On top of that, the respondents have erroneously levied surcharge of Rs. 44,10,674/- upon the petitioner to be paid within 07 days, for delay, which evidently occurred due to ignorance of respondent no. 02 itself and ultimately, the respondent no. 02 issued a letter dt. 26/03/2025, cancelling the tender under clause 9 of the tender conditions on account of delay and non-payment of wrongly levied surcharge of Rs. 44,10,674/- and thereafter, vide impugned letter dated 24.04.2025, the petitioner has been blacklisted. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 16.07.2024, the petitioner had informed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) that since there were certain hurdles, hence 4 he could not perform the work and without deciding the same, his NIT has been cancelled vide order dated 26.03.2025 and further without giving any prior notice, order of blacklisting has been passed vide impugned order dated 24.04.2025 and even forfeited the articles and security amount of the other tender works in arbitrary and contrary manner and above action is without any authority of law as the forfeiture of the articles executed in other tender work is illegal as null and void and exercise is wholly against the provisions of law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the aforesaid submission and submits that the petitioner was given prior notices on 23.12.2024 and 31.01.2025 assigning reasons for cancelling his tender. He fairly submits that before issuance of blacklisting order, no prior notice has been given to the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the prayers and pleading made in the writ petition along with the annexures annexed in this case. 7. From perusal of the materials available on record, it transpires that the work order was issued way back on 15.03.2024 and time stipulated for completion of work was two months, but after lapse of almost four months, on 16.07.2024, the petitioner had informed the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) that since there were certain hurdles, he could not perform the work, thereafter prior notices were given to the petitioner by the 5 respondent authorities on 23.12.2024 and 31.01.2025 assigning reasons for cancelling his tender and since the same were not responded by the petitioner, his tender has been cancelled vide impugned order dated 26.03.2025. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 26.03.2025. 9. So far as passing of order impugned dated 24.04.2025 is concerned, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted, it is undisputed that the same has been passed without giving any prior notice. Hence, the order impugned as far as black-listing of petitioner’s firm is concerned, the same has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. In that view of the matter, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.04.2025 so far it relates to blacklisting of the petitioner is concerned, the same is set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra