1 2025:CGHC:60204-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6410 of 2025 M/s Abhinav Construction Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Abhinav Soni, S/o Shri Shyam Sundar Soni, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No. 206, Power Heights Korba, District Korba C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Municipal Corporation Korba Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Korba, District - Korba C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Adv along with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. and Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.12.2025 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.12 11:18:40 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Government Advocate for respondent No.1 / State and Mr. P. Acharya, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “i. That, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate writ/writ(s), direction/direction(s), order/order(s) setting- aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 (ANNEXURE P/1), in the interest of justice ii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly, be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. iii. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned antedated notice and subsequent order issued by the respondent Municipal Corporation are wholly illegal, arbitrary, and issued with a predetermined and biased mind. It is urged that despite the earlier judgment whereby this Court set aside the forfeiture and restored the petitioner’s status as the original contractor, the Corporation has overreached the liberty granted and, with an ulterior motive, issued the notice dated 25.08.2025 and passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2025 only to justify its previously annulled action and the expenses incurred on a third-party contractor appointed during the pendency of litigation. Instead of complying with the Court’s mandate, 3 the Corporation treated the invalidated forfeiture as still subsisting, sought recovery based on it, and acted as judge in its own cause by ignoring the petitioner’s reply and mechanically invoking Clause 8 without first adjudicating whether the petitioner was actually obligated to perform the alleged repair and maintenance work. It is contended that once the impugned order and notice in WPC No. 3732/2024 were set aside, all consequential steps automatically stood vitiated, yet the authorities, with high-handedness, attempted to overreach the majesty of this Court and even advised the petitioner to approach arbitration, something beyond their authority demonstrating misuse of power. The notice and proceedings thereafter were mere formalities as the Corporation had already determined its course of action, and before any forfeiture or recovery, there ought to have been proper adjudication regarding breach and damages under the Contract Act. Thus, the entire action, including invocation of Clause 8 and the impugned order dated 17.10.2025, suffers from mala fides, contemptuous conduct, predetermined bias, and is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 / Municipal Corporation submits that he has received instructions from the Municipal Corporation Korba – respondent No.2 that there has been some mistake in the impugned order interpreting the order of this court in incorrect manner and it is stated that they are ready to to given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with respect to the default liability period and after considering his claim, appropriate order would be passed. 4 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the action of the Municipal Corporation is supported by the records and has been taken in accordance with the liberty granted by this Court, and that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is contended that since respondent No.2 has already expressed willingness to reconsider the matter and grant a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the grievance raised in the present petition does not survive, and therefore no interference is warranted at this stage. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. Considering the submissions made by the parties, and in view of the fact that respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation has itself acknowledged an error in interpreting the earlier order of this Court and has expressed willingness to afford a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with respect to the alleged default liability, this Court finds that no further adjudication is required at this stage. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.2 to hear the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 8. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law if any further cause of action arises. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet