1 CGHC010327422026 2026:CGHC:38031-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4401 of 2026 M/s Shashank Jain Aged About 34 Years Through Its Proprietor, Shashank Jain S/o Sunil Jain R/o Ward No. 17, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through -The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Officer In -Charge, Central Research Laboratory, Public Works Department, Durg Range, Durg, District -Durg (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bhilai, District -Durg (C.G.) 4 - Executive Engineer No. 2 Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District - Durg (C. G.) 5 - Zone Commissioner, Zone No. 2 Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District - Durg (C. G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Municipal Corporation : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 25.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.08.25 17:22:12 +0530 2 appearing for the State and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation. 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dated 15.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.3/Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to restore the petitioner's name in the list of approved contractors and to permit the petitioner to participate in all future tenders. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to refund the forfeited security deposit to the petitioner forthwith. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete the remaining work in accordance with the terms and conditions of 3 the contract, without prejudice to the petitioner's rights. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3553 of 2026, wherein the petitioner had challenged the action taken against her firm, including the order of blacklisting and debarment. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner had already submitted a representation before the competent authority and, in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondents that the said representation would be considered and decided in accordance with law, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, vide order dated 13.07.2026, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy against the decision of the competent authority. 4. Learned counsel further submits that, in pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the respondents on 16.07.2026, followed by reminders dated 22.07.2026 and 30.07.2026, requesting the competent authority to consider and decide the grievance. However, despite the said representation and repeated reminders, the competent authority has failed to take any decision thereon till date. It is submitted that the 4 petitioner has therefore been compelled to approach this Court once again, particularly when the earlier order specifically permitted the petitioner to take recourse to law against the decision of the authority concerned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that the petitioner is not seeking to bypass the statutory or departmental remedy, but is only seeking consideration and decision upon the representation already submitted pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court. It is submitted that the continued inaction on the part of the competent authority is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, particularly as the impugned order entails blacklisting, debarment from participating in tenders for a period of one year and forfeiture of the security deposit. The petitioner, therefore, prays that an appropriate direction may be issued to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously, in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation do not dispute the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is presently pending consideration before the Mayor-in-Council. They submit that the said appeal may be considered and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the fact that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is already pending before the Mayor-in-Council, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the present petition pending. Accordingly, the Mayor-in-Council is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. While considering the appeal, the concerned authority shall afford due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order on the merits of the appeal. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and the competent authority shall decide the appeal independently, in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu