1 2025:CGHC:51570-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5447 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.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.10.16 17:04:21 +0530 2 4 - Chairman - Appellate Committee Municipal Corporation, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate and Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16.10.2025 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. This petition 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 35000/- and 3 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.” 3. Facts of the case is that the petitioner, a registered civil contractor, was awarded work order in the month of March 2025 for construction of BT road on several key routes within Rajnandgaon city under the Infrastructure Development Scheme, amounting to Rs. 35 lakhs. In furtherance of the said 4 work orders, the petitioner duly mobilized men, material, and machinery for executing the said work. However, despite issuing the work order initially on 07.03.2025 the respondents miserably failed to provide the petitioner with the layout and the mixed design of the Road Construction Project. It is stated that when the petitioner demanded the same, the respondents engineer appeared on the spot and orally instructed the petitioner to complete the said work 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. 4. 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 5 manner, the respondents passed the Impugned Order dated 22.07.2025, whereby the contract of the petitioner was cancelled, the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 26,000/- and Security Deposits of Rs. 4,24,200/- was 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. 5. Further, the impugned order has 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 6 cause”). This vitiates the entire decision-making process and renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the Petitioner prays before this Court for quashing of the Impugned Order 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. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in cancelling the work order, 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 7 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 transparent hearing. Furthermore, the impugned order is 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). 8 Consequently, the remedy of appeal itself is illusory and the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. 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. 8. 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 contended that the Committee entrusted with the appeal is duly competent to adjudicate upon the 9 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. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions advanced by the respective counsel. 10. From perusal of the submissions and records, it transpires that the impugned order is 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. 11. 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 Shoaib