1 2025:CGHC:27594-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3172 of 2025 M/s Graceful Media Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Utkal Ranjan Purohit, S/o Shri Hrishikesh Purohit, Aged About 44 Years, Address - S.F. 22 To 24 Block A Geekay Milestone, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The Municipal Corporation, Raipur Through Its Commissioner, White House, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Superintendent (Advertisement) The Municipal Corporation, Raipur, White House, Near Gandhi Chowk, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/06/2025 1 Heard Mr. R.K.Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): “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 tender cancellation order dt 31.08.2023 (Annexure P/1). 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents in consequence of tender cancellation, to rightfully return 30% rent payment of Rs. 4,89,000/- made by 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 facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner is an advertising agency based in Raipur, Chhattisgarh offering various media services. The petitioner had been doing projects with the respondents for more than 10 years, through tender system for installation of unipoles across the city of Raipur. On 12.12.2022, the respondent No. 01 issued a notification inviting tenders for installation of unipoles on road divider of expressways (Purena and Vishal Nagar) across the city of Raipur. The rates proposed by the petitioner were accepted by the respondent authorities and the same was communicated vide letter dated 20.03.2023. The aforesaid letter communicated that the unipoles would be installed by the petitioner at agreed rate on expressways (Purena over-bridge and Vishal Nagar) and granted the advertisement rights for 05 years to the petitioner. The letter required upfront payment of 30% of the agreed first year rent amounting Rs. 4,89,000/- within 15 days. The petitioner duly and diligently fulfilled the said requisite condition and paid Rs. 5,19,000/- and Rs. 4,89,000/- by the way of cheques to the respondent authorities within stipulated period, while communicating such deposit through letter dated 06.04.2023. 3 4 Mr. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite due payment made, the respondent authorities did not issue work order and erred in drawing out a proper contract between them. The petitioner could not install any unipole in the absence of work order and contract. Consequently, the petitioner addressed the non-issuance of work order and contract vide letter 15.06.2023 to the respondent authorities. However, without paying any heed to the prior letters submitted by the petitioner and without issuing up a valid contract, the respondent issued a letter dated 31.08.2023, cancelling the tender of the petitioner as well as confiscating the security deposit amount made during tender. The respondents erroneously loaded the petitioner with allegations of not taking required steps in pursuance of unipoles installation which included depositing the 30% first year rent within 15 days; completely disregarding cheques and letters of the petitioner. On 06.11.2023, the petitioner made a representation, addressing the impugned cancellation order (Annexure P/1). When the tender has been cancelled, the respondents were obliged to return the amount. Hence, this petition. 5 On the other hand, Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that admittedly, the tender in question has been cancelled and the petitioner will have opportunity to participate in the tender process afresh whenever new tender will be floated in case he fulfills the eligibility criteria. He further submits that respondents are ready to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner. 6 Since the tender in question was cancelled way back on 31.08.2023 and much water has flown thereafter, the only relief that the petitioner can be granted is that the respondents shall refund the 30% rent payment of Rs. 4,89,000/- made by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. It is ordered accordingly. 4 7 With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.26 20:35:06 +0530