1 2025:CGHC:56542-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5750 of 2025 Ravishankar Sahu S/o Battulal Sahu Aged About 78 Years R/o Mohgaon, Tehsil Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director Administration And Development Department, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector Janjgir District Janjgir-Chamapa (C.G.) 4 - Nagar Panchayat Shivrinarayan Through Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Keshwarwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 20.11.2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has preferred the AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.21 10:44:32 +0530 2 following reliefs:- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertinent to case of petitioner. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issued writ/direction to set aside the impugned cancellation proceeding dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 4. 10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction for respondent No. 4 to issue work order for tender dated 15.05.2023 to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, submits that he has filed its reply. Referring to the reply, he would submit that the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat/respondent No. 4 had only passed the resolution for cancelling the NIT in question, but the same has not yet been approved by the Collector as the Collector is the approving authority. He submits that as on date, no work order has been issued, hence, at this stage, the present petition is pre-mature. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to justify the filing of the petition on the ground that 3 the tender which was issued way back in the year 2023 and contract agreement was executed between the parties, but till date, no work order was issued. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and considering the fact that as the resolution passed by respondent No. 4 for cancellation of the NIT has not yet been approved by the Collector, and further, no work order has been issued in favour of the petitioner till date, the petition is found to be premature and is accordingly disposed of at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the appropriate authority to pass appropriate orders on the resolution of the Nagar Panchayat. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep