1 2025:CGHC:61221-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5928 of 2025 Kheduram Sahu S/o Late Bhawsingh Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Kolihamar, Block Gurur, District Balod C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Collector, Balod, District Balod C.G. 3 - Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, District Balod C.G. 4 - Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, District Balod C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.P.Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 and 4 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/12/2025 1 Heard Mr. B.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.16 17:57:50 +0530 2 2 The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the following relief(s): “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned minutes dated 06/09/2025 passed in the meeting of Nagar Panchayat. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondent authorities from taking any decision with regard to change of place or cancelling the ongoing tender for the construction of Nagar Panchayat Bhawan. 10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to supply the copy of lay out plan for the construction of Nagar Panchayat Bhawan, Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner safeguarding their interest.” 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner is that a qualified Class D contractor duly registered and eligible to participate in public works tenders issued by municipal authorities. He submitted his bid in response to the online tender invitations floated by the Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, District Balod. These tenders were publicly invited on 25.10.2024, with the submission deadline fixed at 15.11.2024, in accordance with the established procedures under the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, and the guidelines for e-tendering as prescribed by the State Government. The tenders pertained to two distinct 3 construction projects, namely: (i) Tender System Number 160523, for works in Ward Number 04 at Bara Stand, estimated at Rs. 29.97 lakhs for BTTI-related infrastructure; and (ii) Tender System Number 160524, for the construction of a building at Ward Number 07 in the premises of the old Nagar Panchayat complex, estimated at Rs. 21.31 lakhs. 4 Mr. Singh submits that several contractors participated in the bidding process but the petitioner’s bid emerged as the lowest responsive quote, offering to execute the works at a 12% below the estimated cost (below 1), thereby demonstrating his commitment to efÏcient and cost-effective execution in line with the principles of fair competition and public interest enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates equality before the law and equal protection of laws. Upon acceptance of the petitioner's bid as the most advantageous to the public exchequer, he was directed to furnish the requisite security deposit representing the difference between his quoted rate and the estimated cost. In compliance therewith, the petitioner promptly submitted a formal letter undertaking to deposit the differential amount and proceeded to secure the same through a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), thereby fulfilling his obligations under the tender conditions without any default or delay. Subsequent to the bid evaluation, the Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, convened a general meeting of its council on 02.05.2025, wherein proposal No. 02 was duly passed, formally approving the rates quoted by the petitioner for the aforementioned works reflecting the collective will of the elected representatives to award the contract to the petitioner. On 07.05.2025, the Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, issued a formal letter inviting the petitioner to enter into the contract agreement. On the same date, the agreement was executed between the petitioner and the CMO of Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, encapsulating the terms of reference, 4 scope of work, timelines, and payment schedules for the construction project at the old Nagar Panchayat premises. Thereafter, on 13.05.2025, the formal work order was issued to the Petitioner, directing him to commence execution upon obtaining the layout plan from the Sub- Engineer and to proceed with the developmental activities in a time- bound manner, thereby activating the petitioner's legitimate expectation of uninterrupted support from the municipal machinery to facilitate timely completion. Subsequently, acting diligently upon the work order, the petitioner, on 21.05.2025, under the direct supervision and oversight of the Sub-Engineer, undertook the initial preparatory works at the site located in Ward Number 07, old Nagar Panchayat premises. This included the systematic dismantling of the existing old Nagar Panchayat building and the leveling of the ground to prepare it as a clear field for the layout marking. Despite these efforts, the petitioner encountered undue delays attributable to the administrative lapses of the Nagar Panchayat. specifically, the Sub-Engineer failed to provide the essential layout plan, which is a prerequisite for delineating the exact boundaries, alignments, and measurements essential for the structural foundation and overall execution. In a bid to resolve this bottleneck and uphold his contractual duties, the petitioner addressed a representation to the CMO, Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, on 03.06.2025, earnestly requesting intervention to procure and furnish the layout plan without further procrastination. Undeterred by the initial inaction, the petitioner followed up with a renewed request on 20.06.2025, routed through the ofÏce of the CMO, emphasizing the imperative need for the layout to prevent stagnation of the project and potential escalation in costs. 5 Mr. Singh submits that the layout plan remained forthcoming, compelling the petitioner to escalate the matter to higher echelons of authority to 5 safeguard his rights. On 24.06.2025, he submitted a detailed representation to the Collector, Balod, seeking directives for the expeditious provision of the layout plan. This was followed by communications on 26.06.2025 to the Joint Director, Regional OfÏce of Urban Administration, Durg, and on 07.07.2025 to the Director, Urban Administration and Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, each petitioning for administrative intervention to ensure the layout was marked at the originally designated site, in consonance with the work order and the principles of natural justice that prohibit denial of opportunity to perform without due process. Compounding this sequence of delays and non-cooperation, which spanned over three months from the issuance of the work order on 13.05.2025, the Nagar Panchayat, Gurur/ Respondent No. 4 abruptly passed a proposal on 06.08.2025 to effect a change in the project site. This proposed alteration contravenes the foundational tenets of public administration, as the authority to modify or relocate the site of a tendered public work vests exclusively with the State Government under the statutory framework governing municipal bodies, and not with the Nagar Panchayat itself, which is a delegatee of limited powers. Such a unilateral move, if implemented, would inexorably lead to the cancellation of the existing tender and the invitation of fresh bids, thereby nullifying the petitioner's lawfully acquired contract and inflicting irreparable prejudice, including financial losses from mobilized resources and sunk costs. The petitioner's predicament exemplifies a grave miscarriage of administrative discretion, where the contracting authority's failure to provide essential support has stalled legitimate execution, while the proposed site change threatens to undermine the sanctity of the tender process and the petitioner's vested rights. In the interest of justice and to prevent manifest injustice, the petitioner seeks 6 the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to forthwith provide the layout plan at the original site as per the work order dated 13.05.2025, thereby enabling continuation of the works without further hindrance. 6 On 20.11.2025, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 had submitted that the final decision with respect to the change of location was to be taken by the Director, Urban Administration for which he had sought two weeks’ time to seek instructions. Thereafter, again on 08.12.2025, further time to seek instructions and the matter was directed to be listed in the next week. 7 Today, Mr. Praven Das, learned Deputy Advocate General has produced a copy of the order dated 10.12.2025 bearing File No. LAW- 42014/140/2025-UADD SECTION/205680, issued by the Executive Engineer, Directorate, Urban Administration and Development, Chhattisgarh, addressed to the Chief Municipal OfÏcer, Nagar Panchayat, Gurur, District Balod, wherein it has been stated that the Nagar Panchayat, Gurur has been permitted to change the site and the building construction can be done as has been mentioned in the said order and the petitioner can go ahead with the construction work. By the said order, the petitioner has been permitted to raise construction on the newly proposed site and as such, nothing remains for adjudication in this petition. 8 Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 also concurs with the aforesaid submission stating that no new tender would be floated for the said work and the petitioner may continue with the work in the new location. 9 The copy of the order dated 10.12.2025 is taken on record. 7 10 In view of the above submission, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no further adjudication is warranted in this case. 11 Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet