1 2025:CGHC:32475-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3595 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 : Mr. Rajesh 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 14.07.2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.15 10:10:44 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Agrawal learned Advocate for the respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- 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. 12/07/2023 (Annexure P/1) and System Tender no. 14/01/2025 (Annexure P/2). 164806 dt. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to let the petitioner carry on the uninterrupted work for the remaining contractual period and return the confiscated pylon boards to the petitioner as it being their property. 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. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is an advertising agency based in Raipur, Chhattisgarh offering various media services. On 24/02/2020, 3 the respondent authorities invited tenders for erection of pylon boards and displaying advertising on road dividers for 03 years. On 10/07/2020, the respondent no. 01 communicated through a letter to the petitioner that their tender has been selected for installation of 56 pylon boards and displays in road dividers starting from Ambedkar Chowk (Ghadi Chowk) to Anand Nagar Chowk and from Gurudwara chowk to expressway through the system of BOO (Build, Own and Operate). The above letter further required 30% upfront payment of the agreed first year rent amounting Rs.6,05,993/ (Six Lacs Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Three) within 15 days. Further, the petitioner deposited aforesaid amount and communicated the same through a letter dt. 17/07/2020. Due to unavoidable reasons, the 1st cheques bounced, therefore the petitioner issued another cheque and the same was communicated vide letter dt. 07/08/2020.In furtherance to above, a contract was successfully drawn on 26/08/2020, stating all the necessary and defining terms and conditions. Additionally, a work order was issued simultaneously vide letter dt. 08/09/2020. 4. Thereafter, on 26/03/2021 and 12/05/2021, the respondent no. 01 wrote a letter to the petitioner demanding remaining 70% of the deposit amount as well as levying surcharge of 1% per month on the total remaining amount for delayed deposit, thus increasing the total from Rs. 14,13,983/- to Rs. 1573,561/-; to be paid within 07 days. The petitioner immediately deposited 4 Rs. 5,00,000/- through online transaction and communicated via letter dt. 11/06/2021 to the respondent authorities. The respondent no. 01 wrote a letter dt. 30/06/2021 requiring payment of rest of the amount Rs. 9,13,983/-plus delay surcharge of Rs. 2,01,998/- after deducting Rs. 5 lacs. Further, the petitioner made the payment of Rs. 11,05,993/. After this, the respondent no. 01, once again sent out a letter dt. 22/01/2022 to the petitioner, asking to deposit full outstanding amount for the 1st year Rs. 9,13,983/- and second year outstanding amount including first year of Rs. 31,35,957/ of tender along with hefty surcharge amounting to Rs. 3,67,936/- totaling to Rs. 35,03,893/-. Consequently, the petitioner made payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the respondent authority while informing about transaction vide letter dt. 28/01/2022. 5. On 06/04/2023, the respondent authority sent out a letter to the petitioner, levying surcharge for 3rd year as well. Therefore, total rent for all three years along with the surcharge amounted Rs. 47,13,002/-. Thereafter, once again the respondent arbitrarily, illicitly letter on 11/05/2023, wrongly alleging the petitioner of non-payment of rent within stipulated time, charging delay surcharge for continuously 3 years with total amount to be deposited by the petitioner Rs. 21,34,039. On 12/07/2023, out of the blue, the respondent authorities issued an impugned order (Annexure P/1) to the petitioner stating that petitioner required to deposit Rs. 66,86,121/- and due to delay 5 of 03 months in the payment, the respondent decided to cancel the tender and confiscate security deposit along with all the erected pylon boards. 6. On 14/07/2023, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities, clarifying about the deposits made by the petitioner of total Rs. 25,00,000 along with surplus of Rs. 3,65,961/- and details of regular payments of rent. The petitioner again wrote a letter dt. 01/11/2023 to the respondent authority, requesting not to confiscate the pylon boards of advertisements since all the due deposits had been made by them as demanded by the authority. Furthermore, when the letter dt. 11/05/2023 (Annexure P/14) required payment of Rs. 21,34,039/- the petitioner duly paid Rs. 25,00,000/- but since it was a surplus amount of Rs. of Rs. 3,65,961/-, the petitioner requested that it be adjusted with the other tender granted to them. Further, despite the pylon boards being set up by the system of BOO (Build Own and Operate); the respondent no. 01 has now wrongly invited online bide vide System Tender no. 164306 dt. 14/01/2025 (Annexure P/2) for operation, maintenance and utilization of the already installed 56 pylon boards (6x3 sq. ft.) from Ambedkar Chowk to Telibandha expressway bridge as erected by the petitioner. It is to be noted that these pylon boards, since installed by the petitioner, are technically property of the petitioner. At present, no work order has been issued to any bidder for the aforementioned tender. 6 Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and provisions. He also submits that the tender was based on BOO system (Build, Own and Operate) which means the pylon boards once built by the petitioner now belongs to the petitioner and cannot be confiscated by the respondent authority. He further submits that the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 was served to the petitioner without providing opportunity of hearing and he further submits that extra payments were also made by the petitioner but the same was not adjusted with other ongoing unipoles tenders. He further submits that the System Tender No. 164306 inviting online bids for maintenance and operation of 56 pylon boards is unlawful and illicit as it has been issued without terminating the agreement dated 26.08.2020. As such the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 deserves to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner was issued the work order for installing 56 pylon boards across multiple spots in the city of Raipur and displaying advertisements for 03 years through the system of BOO (Build, Own and Operate). Further from time to time the petitioner was asked to deposit the amount through reference letters. Even after that, the tender amount was not deposited within the 7 stipulated time period. He further submits that according to clause (8) of the tender conditions, if the payment is pending for more than 3 months from the stipulated period, the Municipal Corporation, Raipur will have the right to cancel the tender work, in such a situation, the ownership of the entire property will be with the Municipal Corporation, Raipur. Under the aforesaid provision, due to delay in payment for more than 3 months, the security amount and the property installed i.e. 56 pylon boards have been cancelled. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petition. 10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner was issued issued the work order for installing 56 pylon boards across multiple spots in the city of Raipur and displaying advertisements for 03 years through the system of BOO (Build, Own and Operate). From time to time the petitioner was informed and asked to deposit the requisite amount through reference letters. Even after that, the tender amount was not deposited within the stipulated time period. According to clause (08) of the tender conditions, as the payment is not made even after more than 3 months from the stipulated period, the respondent Corporation cancelled the tender work. 11. The impugned Termination of tender work was made vide order 8 dated 12.07.2023, but the writ petition has been filed by petitioner after a delay of 2 years without explaining the delay. Hence, considering the unexplained delay in filing the writ petition and particularly considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusing the impugned order and reasons assigned by the respondent - Municipal Corporation in rejecting the petitioner’s contract and forfeiting the Security Deposit along with 56 pylon boards, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent – Municipal Corporation, Raipur has not committed any illegality warranting interference by this Court. 12.Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti S.Bhilwar/