-1- 2025:CGHC:34686 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3941 of 2021 Mohammad Shoaib S/o Rafique Mohammad Aged About 32 Years Occupation Contractor (Parking Contractor) R/o Bristol Chowk House No. 8/8, Chotapara, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Additional Collector Najrat Branch , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Collector Through Collector Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For petitioner : Mr. Manish Sahu, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. Topi Lal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be quash/set aside the order dated 30.06.2021 and 01.07.2021 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) and passed the appropriate order Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- for return back the money of Rs. 7,05,878/- 10.2. Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. An Affidavit in support is filed here with.” 2) The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the respondent authorities, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the remaining 50% of the tender amount, despite his contention that the tender terms were not fully adhered to due to the non- operational status of two parking sites and closure during the COVID-19 lockdown. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was awarded the tender for operating a cycle stand at four designated parking sites within the premises of the Collectorate: (i) in front of the Registry Office, (ii) in front of the Office of the Prosecution (SP Office), (iii) in front of the District Treasury Office, and (iv) the Town Hall parking. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the out of the four allotted parking sites, he was only permitted to operate the cycle stand at two locations I.e. in front of the District Treasury Office and Town Hall. The other two locations i.e., the Registry Office and the Office of the Prosecution remained non- operational due to ongoing construction work. It is further submitted that despite only partial operational access, the petitioner deposited 50% of the tender amount amounting to ₹11,05,546/-, and his security deposit of ₹3,00,000/- also remains with the respondents. It is contended that during the period from 31.03.2020 to 30.08.2020 and from 27.07.2020 to 06.08.2020, cycle stand were completely halted due to the COVID-19 lockdown. In view of the restricted and partial operation, the petitioner made a representation seeking -3- refund of 4,05,878/- as parking space was not being used during the said ₹ period, along with the return of the security deposit, totaling 7,05,878/-. ₹ However, instead of considering the representation on its merits, the respondents arbitrarily issued a letter directing the petitioner to deposit the remaining 50% of the tender amount.; thus, orders impugned may be quashed. 5) On the other hand, learned State Counsel, submits that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered and was rejected on 30.06.2021 by the competent authority, on the ground that the tender document did not contain any provision for refund or discount in the event of non-operation. It is submitted that since the terms of the agreement were mutually accepted, any deviation therefrom is impermissible. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7) It is evident from the record that the petitioner was awarded the tender to operate cycle stands at four designated parking sites. However, two of the allotted locations were rendered non-operational due to construction work, and the remaining two were affected by the COVID-19 lockdown. The petitioner had deposited 50% of the tender amount and had requested proportionate adjustment or refund based on the non-use of parking sites for a substantial period. 8) A committee was constituted to consider the grievance, and the Collector, by a reasoned order dated 30.06.2021, rejected the representation of the petitioner, holding that there was no provision in the tender document for refund or discount in such eventualities. 9) It is settled law that once the tender conditions are accepted and a contract is executed, neither party can unilaterally alter the terms of the contract unless such flexibility is provided for under the agreement. -4- 10) In view of the above, I find no infirmity or arbitrariness in the decision taken by the respondents. The rejection of the petitioner’s claim is based on the absence of any contractual provision to that effect. Therefore, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM