1 2026:CGHC:22837-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2455 of 2026 Ashok Kumar Mittal S/o P.L. Mittal Aged About 59 Years R/o- Main Road Korba , Tehsil- Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Urban Administration And Development, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Municipal Corporation Durg Through Its Commissioner, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.05.15 10:24:24 +0530 2 Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent No.1 and Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1) That the Hon'ble Court may be please to issue the writ of appropriate nature quashing the order dated 29.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the Respondent No 2 (Municipal Corporation Durg), by virtue of which the work awarded to the petitioner vide agreement dated 15.02.2018 was terminated and the petitioner was blacklisted for indefinite period without issuing any show cause notice, in the interest of justice. 10.2) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Durg, terminating the contract work of the petitioner and blacklisting the petitioner for an indefinite period, is wholly arbitrary, illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that no fresh show- 3 cause notice was ever issued prior to passing of the impugned order and the respondents have illegally relied upon the earlier notice dated 25.08.2025, which had already lost its efficacy in view of the subsequent developments, including withdrawal of earlier writ petitions with liberty, pendency of appeal before the CEO, SUDA and resumption of work by the petitioner on 15.01.2026 within the knowledge of the authorities. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the delay in execution of the project was not attributable to the petitioner alone, as the respondent authorities themselves failed to provide complete encumbrance-free land within time and also delayed payment of bills for a considerable period of nearly two and a half years. It is contended that because of change of site, non- availability of land and curtailment of certain units, the petitioner suffered huge financial losses, despite which the petitioner continuously communicated with the authorities and even invoked the arbitration clause under Clause 1.18 of the agreement for resolution of disputes. 5. It is further argued that despite pendency of the appeal before the CEO, SUDA against rejection of arbitration, the respondent authorities abruptly terminated the contract and blacklisted the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing, which action carries serious civil consequences affecting the petitioner’s business reputation and future participation in government 4 tenders. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed being violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that as specifically observed in Clause-7 of the impugned order dated 29.04.2026, the Urban Administration and Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide communication dated 24.03.2026, has categorically directed all concerned authorities to ensure completion of the ongoing housing projects under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) on or before 30.09.2026 and no further extension beyond the said date shall be granted under any circumstances. He submits that despite repeated extensions, continuous monitoring and issuance of several notices from time to time, the petitioner failed to complete the work within the stipulated timeline and the progress of the project remained extremely unsatisfactory. It is further submitted that looking to the very slow pace of execution and prolonged delay of more than seven years in completion of the project, the respondent authorities were left with no other option except to invoke the conditions of the contract and proceed in accordance with Clause 1.15 of the agreement so as to ensure timely completion of the public welfare housing scheme within the outer limit fixed by the Government, i.e., 30.09.2026. 5 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 8. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an affidavit before this Court today itself undertaking therein that the entire remaining work in question shall be completed positively on or before 30.09.2026, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as within the timeline prescribed by the Government under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban). The said affidavit is taken on record. 9. The contents and averments made in the affidavit dated 14.05.2026, filed by the petitioner before this Court, read as under:- “1) That, petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by the respondent no 2 whereby, the contract awarded to the petitioner has been terminated and he has been blacklisted for indefinite period. 2) That the petitioner has submitted before the Hon'ble Court in view of letter dated 16.03.2026, (Page No 164) the period of completion of the work was extended till 31.07.2026, and vide letter dated 02.04.2026 it was extended till 30.09.2026. 3) That, petitioner during the course of hearing undertakes, to complete the work within a stipulated period as narrated in the 6 letter dated 16.03.2026 and 02.04.2026. In view of the same, the petitioner herewith undertakes to complete the work, on or before 30.09.2026 and in support of the said undertakings the affidavit, has been attached with this application. 4) That, the undertaking of the petitioner that, he will on or before complete the remaining work 30.09.2026, may kindly be taken on record, and the affidavit has been filed to that effect may also kindly be taken on record.” 10. From perusal of the aforesaid affidavit, it transpires that the petitioner has now unequivocally undertaken before this Court that in the event the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 is kept in abeyance, the petitioner shall positively complete the entire remaining work relating to the project in question on or before 30.09.2026, in terms of the extended timeline granted by the competent authorities under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban). The affidavit further reflects that the petitioner is willing to abide by all the terms and conditions of the agreement and undertakes not to seek any further extension of time beyond 30.09.2026. 11. Considering the aforesaid undertaking furnished by the petitioner before this Court, the submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, and further considering that the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 has been passed primarily on account of delay in execution of the work coupled with the 7 strict timeline now prescribed by the Government for completion of the project, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 is kept in abeyance for a limited period so as to enable the petitioner to complete the remaining work within the extended timeline granted by the Government. 12. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties with regard to the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 29.04.2026, the present writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the operation and effect of the impugned order dated 29.04.2026, whereby the contract of the petitioner has been terminated and the petitioner has been blacklisted, shall remain kept in abeyance till 30.09.2026. The petitioner shall continue and complete the remaining work strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and in terms of the undertaking furnished before this Court in the affidavit dated 14.05.2026, which shall form part of this order. 13. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner fails to complete the remaining work on or before 30.09.2026 or commits breach of any of the undertakings furnished before this Court, the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 shall automatically revive and it shall be open for the respondent authorities to proceed further in 8 accordance with law as well as in terms and conditions of the agreement, without requiring any further reference to this Court. 14. It is further directed that during the period the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 remains in abeyance, the respondent authorities shall extend necessary cooperation to the petitioner and shall ensure that no administrative hindrance is caused in execution and completion of the remaining work within the stipulated period. 15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu