Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133921-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22193 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Irwm And Company Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avanish Kumar Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Abhinav Krishna Srivastava, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the impugned notice dated 7.6.2024 and order dated 24.6.2024 passed by respondent No.3. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had been awarded a tender for installing 3 QMT semi underground bin. The work order was issued to the petitioner and after issuance of the work order a notice was served upon the petitioner, directing it to complete the work within 15 days. However, the petitioner could not complete the work within the aforesaid period. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner had not started the work under the contract and the petitioner was asked to inform the respondent Nagar Nigam within three days as to whether the petitioner wants to do the work under the contract or not. The petitioner did not reply the same. Consequently, the work order of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 24.6.2024 and after forfeiting its security amount, the petitioner was also blacklisted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after cancellation of the tender of the petitioner, a fresh tender was notified and the work got done by some other company. Accordingly, it is submitted that as of today, the petitioner's only grievance is that since termination of the contract was not in accordance with law, forfeiting of the security amount deposited by the petitioner for the award of contract as well as blacklisting it is illegal. He, therefore, submits that a contract be issued to respondent No.2 to release the security amount. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam contends that it is only the respondent No.2/ Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur who is the competent authority to see whether the terms and conditions of the contract permit refund of the security amount or not and in such view of the fact, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Therefore, appropriate direction may be passed by this Court. 6. Considering the aforesaid submission advanced by the parties, the petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file a detailed representation before respondent No.2, ventilating its grievance with respect to refund of security money and blacklisting the petitioner firm, within a period of one month form today. 7. In case such a representation is filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same within two months thereafter, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Vandana (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad