1 CGHC010310232026 2026:CGHC:37540-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4182 of 2026 M/s S.S. Construction, B Class Contractor Through Its Proprietor Sarwari Ali, W/o Mohammd Shahzad Ali, Aged About 37 Years, Main Road Kunkuri, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development Department, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Development, Regional Office, Surguja Division, Ambikapur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.) 5 - President/administrator Nagar Panchayat Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.24 10:52:16 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21/08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate, for the State, and Mr. Manoj Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: "1. The Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the impugned System Tender No. 195131 (NIT No. 382/2026) dated 09.07.2026 issued by Respondent No. 4, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court; 2. The Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and quash the Notice for System Tender No. 195131 (NIT No. 382/2026) dated 09.07.2026 so far as it overlaps with the petitioner's subsisting contract; 3. Alternatively, the Court may kindly be pleased to pass appropriate writ(s)/order(s) and direct the respondents to decide pending representation submitted by petitioner in stipulated time in an objective manner marked as Annexure P/4. 4. Any other relief/direction that the Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed a separate petition challenging the action of blacklisting, which is likely to come up for consideration before this Court. He further submits that the grievance raised in the present petition relates to the issuance of a new Tender No. 195131 (NIT No. 382/2026) for the same wards, incorporating identical SORs, introducing arbitrary machine ownership clauses, and overlapping with the petitioner’s subsisting contract. He further submits that the petitioner has already submitted a representation before the competent authority and the same is pending consideration. 4. Considering the aforesaid submissions and the fact that the petitioner has already filed a separate petition challenging the action of blacklisting and his representation is stated to be pending before the concerned authority, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his pending representation, and the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok