1 2025:CGHC:51052-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5385 of 2025 M/s Sanjay Singhi Through Proprietor - Sanjay Singhi, S/o Late Dr. Tarachand Singhi, Aged About 61 Years, Having Its Registered Office At A-50, Vardhaman Nagar, Rajnandgaon P.S. Lalbagh P.O. Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh 4 - Chairman Appellate Committee, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4927 of 2025 M/s Sanjay Singhi Throug Proprietor- Sanjay Singhi, S/o Late Dr. Tarachand Singhi, Aged About 61 Years, Having Its Registered Office At A- 50 , Vardhaman Nagar, Rajnandgaon P.S. Lal Bagh P.O.- Rajnandaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.10.15 10:48:40 +0530 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chairman- Appellate Committee Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 5340 of 2025 M/s Sanjay Singhi Through Proprietor- Sanjay Singhi, S/o Late Dr. Tarachand Singhi, Aged About 61 Years, Having Its Registered Office At A-50, Vardhaman Nagar, Rajnandgaon P.S. Lalbagh, P.O. Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur C.G. 2 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. 3 - Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. 4 - Chairman- Appellate Committee, Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G. --- Respondent(s) 3 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. The WPC No. 5385/2025 has been filed seeking following relief(s):- “A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and quash or set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the work order has been arbitrarily cancelled, the Earnest Money Deposit of 29,000/- and Performance Guarantee of 1,35,000/-has been forfeited, and the Petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years. B. May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore the work order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) and permit the Petitioner 4 to complete the remaining balance works in terms of the original tender and contractual conditions, at the rates earlier quoted, within such time period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; C. May this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to have the appeal preferred by the petitioner U/s 403 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 decided by the appropriate fourm/committee. D. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favor of the Petitioner.” 3. The WPC No. 4927/2025 has been filed seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and quash or set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the work order has been arbitrarily cancelled, the Earnest Money Deposit of 35,000/- and Performance Guarantee of 5,60,672/-has been forfeited, and the Petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years. 10.2 May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore the work order dated 07.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) and permit the Petitioner to complete the remaining balance works in terms of the original tender and contractual conditions, at the rates earlier quoted, within such time period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; 5 10.3 Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favor of the Petitioner.” 4. The WPC No. 5340/2025 has been filed seeking following relief(s):- “A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction and quash or set aside the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the work order has been arbitrarily cancelled, the Earnest Money Deposit of 35,000/- and Performance Guarantee of 1,32,730/-has been forfeited, and the Petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years. B. May, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore the work order dated 06.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) and permit the Petitioner to complete the remaining balance works in terms of the original tender and contractual conditions, at the rates earlier quoted, within such time period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; C. May this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent no.2 to have the appeal preferred by the petitioner U/s 403 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 decided by the appropriate fourm/committee. D. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in favor of the Petitioner.” 5. Facts of the case consolidated from all the three petitions is that 6 the petitioner, a registered civil contractor, was awarded different work orders during the period January to March 2025 for execution of bituminous road construction works in Rajnandgaon city under the Infrastructure Development Scheme, having contract values ranging between Rs.39.15 lakhs to Rs.46.26 lakhs. In furtherance of the said work orders, the petitioner duly mobilized men, material, and machinery at the site and completed substantial portions of the allotted works, valued approximately between Rs. 22.83 lakhs to Rs. 31 lakhs. However, due to continuous and unseasonal rains during the execution period, the progress of the bituminous work was severely hampered. The said climatic conditions made it technically impossible to execute the remaining work within the original stipulated period, a circumstance entirely beyond the control of the petitioner. These genuine difficulties and the reasons for delay were duly brought to the notice of the respondents from time to time through letters and written replies. 6. Despite this, the respondents, instead of appreciating the factual situation, acted with predetermined malice and in complete disregard of the circumstances. Repeated notices were issued alleging false imputations of delay and sub-standard work. Thereafter, in a high-handed and punitive manner, the respondents passed the Impugned Orders dated 22.07.2025, whereby the respective contracts of the petitioner were cancelled, the Earnest Money Deposit and Security Deposits (ranging from 7 Rs.29,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and Rs.1,32,730/- to Rs.5,60,672/- respectively) were forfeited, and the petitioner was blacklisted for a period of three years on baseless allegations of non- performance and sub-standard quality. Such action of the respondents is manifestly arbitrary, disproportionate, and actuated with mala fides, being in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as well as contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had at all times demonstrated readiness and willingness to complete the remaining works at the original tendered rates, however, the termination and blacklisting orders were passed without affording a fair and proper opportunity of hearing. 7. Further, the impugned orders have been passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 2), who is also designated as the appellate authority under Clause 28 of the contract. Such a clause is void ab initio as it violates the rule against bias — nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa (“no one should be a judge in his own cause”). This vitiates the entire decision-making process and renders the impugned orders unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the Petitioner prays before this Court for quashing of the Impugned Orders dated 22.07.2025, restoration of the work orders, and consequential reliefs, including protection against coercive recovery and liberty to complete the balance works in the larger public interest. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the 8 respondents in cancelling the work orders, forfeiting the Earnest Money and Security Deposits, and blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years, is ex facie arbitrary, mala fide and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. Further, it is an admitted position on record that the petitioner, a registered civil contractor, had mobilized adequate men, material and machinery and had already completed a substantial part of the allotted works under the respective work orders. The only reason for non-completion of the remaining portion of work was continuous and unseasonal rains, which rendered execution of bituminous work technically impossible during the relevant period. These genuine circumstances were repeatedly communicated to the respondents through letters and replies. Despite being fully aware of the factual position, the respondents, acting with pre-determined malice and in disregard of the ground reality, issued multiple notices imputing false allegations of delay and poor performance. Such conduct clearly demonstrates a closed mind approach and lack of fair consideration. Thereafter, without affording any effective opportunity of hearing, the respondents passed the impugned orders, cancelling the work contracts, forfeiting the deposits, and blacklisting the petitioner. It is submitted that blacklisting has severe civil consequences and as per the settled law of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, such punitive action cannot be sustained in the absence of a fair and 9 transparent hearing. Furthermore, the impugned orders are also vitiated by bias, inasmuch as they have been passed by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, who is also designated as the appellate authority under Clause 28 of the contract. This clause is void ab initio as it violates the cardinal principle of natural justice nemo debet esse judex in propria sua causa (no person shall be a judge in his own cause). Consequently, the remedy of appeal itself is illusory and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents is also disproportionate. The petitioner has already executed the substantial portion of the work at site and had never refused to complete the balance portion once the climatic conditions improved. Despite this, the respondents have proceeded to blacklist the petitioner for three years, which is grossly excessive and punitive, especially when there is no allegation of fraud or deliberate default. It is further submitted that the respondents’ actions are contrary to the settled principles of administrative law and contractual fairness. Even in contractual matters, State authorities are required to act fairly, reasonably and in a non-arbitrary manner. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order, which is the subject matter of the present petition, is already under challenge before the competent Appellate authority under Section 403 of the Municipal Corporation Act. It is 10 contended that the Committee entrusted with the appeal is duly competent to adjudicate upon the matter, and the petitioner’s statutory remedy of appeal remains available and has been rightly invoked. Accordingly, it is submitted that the present petition is premature and that the petitioner cannot bypass the alternate statutory remedy provided under the law. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsel. 12. From perusal of the submissions and records, it transpires that the impugned orders are already subject to an appeal under Section 403 of the Municipal Corporation Act and that the appellate authority is competent to decide the matter. It is contended that the petitioner’s statutory remedy remains available and that the present petition is premature. 13. In view of the submissions and the fact of the case, the petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available, under the law. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet