1 2026:CGHC:1865-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 111 of 2026 1 - M/s Deshkar Advertising A Proprietorship Firm Through- Its Proprietor Vishal Deshkar Aged About 46 Years, Son Of Late Arun Deshkar Having The Registered Office Address At Anupam Nagar, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Municipal Corporation Raipur, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Superintendent (Advertisement) Municipal Corporation Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prafull Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent 1 and 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13 .01.2026 SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.04 10:32:44 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Prafull Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned appearing for the Respondent No.1 and 2. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- 10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling the relevant records from the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quash the letter dated 07.08.2025 of termination of tender & work order which was issued to the petitioner and further direct the respondent authorities to withdraw from new tender proceedings. 10.3 Cost of the proceedings. 10.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm engaged in the business of advertisement and is entitled to protection of fundamental and constitutional rights. The respondent authority issued an NIT dated 14.12.2021 for establishment of a double- facing unipole at Katora Talab Garden for a period of five years. The petitioner participated in the tender process and was awarded the work order on 31.03.2022 after depositing 30% of the accepted tender amount and executing the requisite agreements. As per the terms and conditions, the remaining installments were to be paid periodically, with surcharge applicable in case of delay, and the petitioner duly paid all amounts, including surcharge wherever applicable, up to May 2026. During the subsistence of the contract, the then proprietor of the petitioner firm, Late Arun Deshkar, suffered prolonged illness and expired on 30.11.2024, 3 resulting in temporary blockage of the firm’s bank accounts and delay in payment of certain installments, which was duly intimated to the respondent authority. After completion of legal formalities, the son of the deceased proprietor took over the proprietorship. However, without specifying any details of alleged default and without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing any show cause notice, the respondent authority arbitrarily cancelled the petitioner’s tender by letters dated 08.07.2025 and 07.08.2025. Despite accepting the petitioner’s explanation, receiving detailed payment records, and even accepting future installments up to 31.05.2026, the respondent authority issued a fresh tender for the same site on 22.12.2025, reflecting predetermined intent. The impugned action, taken in violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, who has already invested substantial amounts under the validly awarded contract. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the termination of the petitioner’s tender and work order is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded. The impugned order is vague and non-speaking, failing to specify the alleged default. The petitioner had cleared all dues up to 31.05.2025 and even paid subsequent installments within the permissible period, with delay, if any, duly explained and accepted along with surcharge. The respondent authority, after accepting future installments up to 31.05.2026, could not lawfully terminate the tender, which demonstrates arbitrariness and malice in law. The delay occurred due to the illness and death of the previous proprietor and subsequent legal formalities, which were duly intimated to the respondents but ignored. The impugned action has caused grave financial prejudice, infringes the petitioner’s right to trade, and 4 violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and 2/ Municipal Corporation would submit that the action of the respondent– Municipal Corporation is lawful, justified, and strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender. The petitioner repeatedly defaulted in timely payment of installments, and mere payment with surcharge or subsequent acceptance of amounts does not create a vested right to continue the contract. As per the tender conditions, failure to pay installments within the stipulated period empowered the respondent authority to cancel the tender without further indulgence. The illness or death of the proprietor, though unfortunate, cannot override contractual obligations or bind the public authority to extend time indefinitely. The petitioner was fully aware of the payment schedule and consequences of default at the time of execution of the agreement. Acceptance of amounts by the Corporation does not amount to waiver of its right to terminate, nor does it estop the Corporation from enforcing the contract in the larger public interest. The termination order was passed in exercise of contractual and statutory powers, and no mala fide or arbitrariness is made out. The dispute raised is purely contractual in nature, involving disputed facts, and does not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. No violation of Articles 14, 19 or 21 of the Constitution is established, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents annexed with the writ petition. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it emerges that the petitioner was granted approval and work order for installation and operation of a double- sided unipole for a period of five years subject to strict compliance with the 5 contractual terms, including timely payment of installments. The petitioner committed a delay exceeding three months in making payment, which, as per the contract, resulted in automatic cancellation of the tender and forfeiture of the security deposit as well as the installed unipole. A notice dated 08.07.2025 was duly issued and dispatched to the petitioner, directing removal of the advertising material; however, despite cancellation of the tender, the petitioner continued to display advertisements on the said unipole, as found during site inspection. The petitioner was further directed to clear outstanding dues within a stipulated period and remove the advertisements, failing which coercive action was contemplated. These facts prima facie demonstrate breach of contractual obligations, unauthorized use of municipal property after cancellation, and justify the action taken by the respondent authority. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned order and reasons assigned by the respondent- Municipal Corporation in rejecting the petitioner’s tender and forfeiting the Security Deposit along with Mini Unipoles, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent- Municipal Corporation, Raipur has not committed any illegality warranting interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika