1 2025:CGHC:45553 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4627 of 2025 1 - Mohammed Yasin S/o Mr. Mohammed Iqbal Aged About 50 Years R/o H.No. 27, Mohammed Nagar, Rojgari Para, Kondagaon District - Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Of Urban Development Administration And Development Deaprtment New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, (C.G.) 3 - Municipality Kondagaon Through Chief Municipal Officer, Kondagaon (C.G.) 4 - Chief Municipal Officer (Cmo), Municipality Kondagaon (C.G.) ----Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:- 10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue comanding and directing the respondent authorities to produce before this Hon’ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.19 17:58:04 +0530 2 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 being abitrary, illegal and contrary to principle of natural justice and in effect quash the re-allotment notification dated 08.08.2025. And/or A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 to the extent of forfeiture of earnest amount and direct the respondent No. 3 & 4 to return the earnest amount to the petitioner. 10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue directing the respondent No. 3 & 4 to provide the monetary compensation to the petitioner for their illegal and arbitrary act. 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order(s) or direction (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience; 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is challenging the order/ Letter dated 13.06.2025 issued by the respondent no. 4 thereby terminated the allotment of the fours shops of the petitioner and also forfeit the deposited amount of Rs. 1038693/- and the grounds mentioned therein that despite demand made for remaining payments of amount i.e. Rs. 2500000/- payments has not been made, whereas no such opportunity has been provided and question of remaining payments would arise only when the repairing of the shops would be done and therefore the impugned letter/order dated 16.06.2025 issued by the respondent no. 4 being arbitrary and illegal and without providing the opportunity of hearing and without following the rules and law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order, the concerned authority has not been afforded 3 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passed the impugned order. Moreover, bare perusal of the impugned order i.e. 13.06.2025 reflects that decision for the termination of allotment has been taken itself on dated 17.04.2025 as mentioned in the impugned order and therefore the alleged notice dated 15.05.2025 which is said to be show cause was mere formality, therefore the entire proceedings from the documents of the respondent itself shows that the impugned order is not sustainable. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SSC 551. 5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that with regard to grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner has an alternate remedy available under Section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1956, therefore the present writ petition would not be maintainable in this case. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Section 307 of Municipal Corporation Act provides as under:- (2) If a building is erected or re-erected- (a)without any sanction as required by Section 293 (1); or(b)when sanction has been refused; or(c)in contravention of the terms of any sanction granted; or(d)when sanction has lapsed under Section 300,the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under Section 294, shall-(a)by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him 4 or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down; or(b)shall require the said person on such day and at such time and place as shall be specified in such notice to attend personally or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf, and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down. (3)If such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, the Commissioner may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the person. (4)If the plans are approved by the Commissioner and the approval is communicated to the person intending to build the house or if the plans are rejected by the Commissioner but no notice of their rejection is given to person intending to build the house within the prescribed period it shall not he open to the Commissioner to give a notice under sub-sections (1) and (2) on the ground that the building is erected or re-erected in contravention of any scheme or bye-laws or any other requirements under this chapter. (5)Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the Corporation or any other person to apply to the District Court for an injunction or the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provisions of this Act or the bye- laws made thereunder, but if the building is one in respect of which plans have been deposited and the plans have been passed by the Commissioner, or notice that they have been rejected has not been given within the prescribed period after the deposit thereof, and if the work has been executed in accordance with the plans, the District Court on granting an injunction shall have power to order the Corporation to pay to the owner of the work such compensation as the District Court thinks just, but before making any such order the District Court cause the Commissioner if not a party to be joined as a party to the proceeding. 8. From bare perusal of the Act, it is crystal clear that there is no provision of appeal for forfeiture of amount by the Municipal Corporation, therefore the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court. 5 9. It is crystal clear from the impugned order that the respondent No. 3 & 4 without affording opportunity of hearing with regard to forfeiture of the earnest money and without giving show-cause notice to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 & 4 has forfeited the amount of Rs. 10,38,693/-. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UMC Technologies Private Limited Vs. Food Corporation of India and Another has held in paragraph 25 as under:- 25. The mere existence of a clause in the bid document, which mentions blacklisting as a bar against eligibility, cannot satisfy the mandatory requirement of a clear mention of the proposed action in the show-cause notice. The Corporation’s notice is completely silent about blacklisting and as such, it could not have led the appellant to infer that such an action could be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of this notice. Had the Corporation expressed its mind in the show cause notice to blacklist, the appellant could have filed a suitable reply for the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the show-cause notice dated 10.04.2018 does not fulfil the requirements of a valid show-cause notice for blacklisting. In our view, the order of blacklisting the appellant clearly traversed beyond the bounds of the show-cause notice which is impermissible in law. As a result, the consequent blacklisting order dated 6 09.01.2019 cannot be sustained. 11. In the present case, the Corporation’s notice is completely silent about the forfeiture amount which has been deposited by the petitioner, therefore this Court is of the considered view that the show cause notice dated 15.05.2025 does not fulfill the requirements and norms of natural justice. Therefore, it is not a valid show-cause notice for the purpose of forfeituring of money which has been deposited by the petitioner. As a result, the consequent forfeiture order dated 13.06.2025 cannot be sustained. The order dated 13.06.2025 is hereby set-aside. 12. However, the respondent No. 3 & 4 is at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass an appropriate order as per law/rules/regulations. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti