1 2026:CGHC:27387-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3098 of 2026 1 - Unnati Swa Sahayata Samuh Through Its President Reshma Begum, D/o Shri Rashid Ahmed, Aged About 32 Years R/o Kududand, Thasil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education , Sawasthya Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Health Services , Sawasthya Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner, Bilaspur Region/ Chairman, Jeevandeep Committee, State Mental Housing Sendri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Hospital Superintendent State Mental Hospital, Sendri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - R.M.O. / Food Incharge Officer State Mental Hospital , Sendri, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Ankit Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Through President Uma Kesharwani, Office At Rapta Chowk Sanichari Bazar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For State : Shri Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 03.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.04 12:08:25 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record which relates to the case and allotment of tender to the petitioner for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and thereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2026 (Bhojan Nivida/2026/1190) passed by Respondent No.4 whereby Order No.792 dated 02.04.2026 issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. (Annexure P-1). 10.3 That the respondent's authority may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2 Brief facts of the case are that, on 08.04.2025, the respondent No.4, Hospital Superintendent of State Mental Hospital, Sendri, Bilaspur, issued a tender exclusively for Women Self-Help Groups to provide meals to indoor patients for 2024-25. The Petitioner, Respondent No.6 and others Women Groups participated wherein the respondent No.6 declared the lowest bidder (L-1) whereas, the petitioner was L-2. A formal agreement was executed on 30.04.2025 in favour of respondent No.6 for 12 months period with a clause allowing cancellation only with one month’s notice. Subsequently, vide Work Order dated 02.05.2025 authorizing the respondent No.6 to start providing meals from 03.05.2025. The petitioner herein made complaint on 28.11.2025 alleging irregularities and submission of fabricated document by respondent No.6 and prayer for cancellation of the contract upon which, the Respondent No. 4 issued a Show Cause Notice on 19.12.2025 to respondent No.6. Thereafter, vide letter No.Bhojan Nivida/2026/790, dated 02.04.2026, the contract issued in favour of 3 respondent No.6 was cancelled and on the same day i.e. on 02.04.2026 another order No.Bhojan Nivida/2026/792, dated 02.04.2026 was issued in favour of petitioner herein, being L-2 and the petitioner herein was directed to supply food to the patients. An agreement was also executed in this regard on 10.04.2026. 3 Against cancellation of contract, the respondent No.6 herein filed WPC No.2509 of 2026 before this court with a prayer to set aside the award/order No.Bhojan Nivida/2026/790, dated 02.04.2026. The said Writ Petition (C) filed by the respondent No.6 herein was allowed on 15.05.2026 holding that tender was cancelled and awarded the same tender to petitioner herein on the same day without inviting fresh tender, and the respondent No.4 was directed to reconsider the reply submitted by respondent No.6 and thereafter to pass a fresh order within a period of week and till then the petitioner herein was allowed to continue with the said tender/award. Now vide order impugned dated 22.05.2026 the order No.Bhojan Nivida/2026/792, dated 02.04.2026 has been cancelled by which the petitioner was awarded the work. Hence this petition. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in WPC No.2509 of 2026, the Respondent No.4 was only directed to reconsider the explanation submitted by Respondent No.6 and thereafter to pass a fresh reasoned order. Pending such reconsideration, the petitioner was specifically permitted to continue with the work. Instead of independently examining whether the respondent No.6 had furnished fabricated documents and whether cancellation of its contract was justified, the Respondent No.4 cancelled the petitioner's work order. 4 Such action defeats the very purpose of the order of court dated 15.05.2026 passed in WPC No.2509 of 2026 and it amounts to non- compliance of the directions of the Court. The petitioner neither participated nor influenced the decision of Respondent No.4 to award the work after cancellation of the contract issued in favour of Respondent No.6. The petitioner simply accepted the work legally offered by the competent authority after the contract of Respondent No.6 stood cancelled. If the authority committed any procedural error in awarding the work without inviting fresh tenders, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for an act over which it had no control. After issuance of the work order dated 02.04.2026, a formal agreement was executed on 10.04.2026 by the petitioner. Most importantly, the order No.792 granting contract in favour of petitioner was never challenged by the respondent No.6 in their writ petition. The prayer made by them was to set aside the order No.790 and not 792. Therefore, cancellation of contract/award issued in favour of petitioner herein needs interference of this court. 5 Learned counsel for the State would submit that the period of contract is over. Initially an agreement was executed on 30.04.2025 in favour of respondent No.6 for a period of 12 months. Subsequently, vide Work Order dated 02.05.2025 the respondent No.6 was authorized to start providing meals from 03.05.2025, however, on complaint being made by the petitioner herein disputing the documents of respondent No.6 and certain irregularities, the contract issued in favour of respondent No.6 was cancelled and petitioner herein, being L-2, was temporary allotted the said work only for remaining period and therefore 5 award/order No.Bhojan Nivida/2026/790, dated 02.04.2026 and consensual orders all have been cancelled including the award/order No.Bhojan Nivida/2026/792, dated 02.04.2026, issued in favour of petitioner herein. Thus, the matter become academic after completion of one year of contract/award period and further new bids are to be opened on 10.07.2026, therefore, the writ petition being sans merit deserves to be dismissed. 6 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records annexed with the case. 7 It is not in dispute that the original contract awarded in favour of Respondent No.6 was for a period of twelve months commencing from 03.05.2025. Similarly, undisputed is the fact that the petitioner was not awarded a fresh independent contract, but was entrusted with the work only after cancellation of the contract of Respondent No.6 only for the remaining period of the original contract. It is also evident from the order dated 15.05.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.2509 of 2026 that the authority was required to reconsider the matter relating to cancellation of contract of Respondent No.6. The continuation of the petitioner during the intervening period was only an interim arrangement till such reconsideration. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any independent or vested right to continue beyond the tenure of the original contract. 8 More importantly, during the pendency of the present writ petition, the contractual period itself has come to an end. The State has categorically submitted that fresh bids are to be opened on 10.07.2026 for the ensuing period. Thus, even if the impugned order is to be 6 interfered with, no meaningful relief can now be granted to the petitioner as the period for which the contract existed has already expired. 9 It is well settled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is ordinarily not exercised for deciding academic or infructuous issues where no consequential relief can be granted. Courts refrain from adjudicating disputes which have become purely academic due to subsequent events. 10 In the facts of the present case, since the contractual period has admittedly expired and the authorities have already initiated a fresh tender process for the next contractual period, the controversy raised in the present petition has become academic. 11 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder