JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sakib Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the order dated 08.09.2021, whereby, the contract entered into with the petitioner in connection with installation, operation and maintenance of traffic signals and unipoles was cancelled and all signals and boards erected by the petitioner were directed to be removed within a period of three days.

3. The case presented in the writ petition, in short, is that the petitioner, which is a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of advertisement and it had responded to a tender issued by the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, (for short, ‘the Corporation’), inviting bids for installation of traffic signals at various locations under the Municipal area, Zone No. 2, of the Corporation.

4. The Corporation, by an order dated 08.02.2021, offered the petitioner to provide services for installation of traffic signals and unipoles. Consequent thereto, the Corporation entered into a contract dated 24.05.2021 for a period of five years for installation of traffic signals and unipoles for advertisement. On the very date of execution of the agreement, no objection certificate from Police authorities was obtained. On receipt of a notice dated 28.05.2021 from the Executive Engineer, Zone No. 2 to deposit exhibition fee, the petitioner deposited the exhibition fee.

5. On completion of the requisite terms and conditions of the contract, the work order was issued to the petitioner on 14.06.2021. The petitioner had invested an amount of Rs. 1.25 crores for installation of traffic signals and unipoles. However, on 08.09.2021, the respondent No. 2 cancelled the contract on the ground that the advertisement display board is not within the standard parameters and is not safe from the traffic point of view and that there was gross violation of condition Nos. 14 and 15 of the agreement.

6. It is pleaded that none have informed the petitioner about any deviation from the standard parameters while installing traffic signals and unipoles and that the respondent No. 2 acted on his whims and caprice and the unilateral cancellation of the contract had taken place without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without taking into confidence the Commissioner of the Corporation.

7. It is urged that the impugned action of the authority is violative of the principle of natural justice and Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.

8. A return was filed by the respondents, by way of preliminary submission, without filing para-wise reply on the ground that preliminary submission was sufficient to establish that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him. It is also stated that the respondents reserved their right to file a detailed para-wise reply to the petition, if the occasion arises or is directed by the Court.

9. When a return is filed, the answering respondent is required to take all such pleas as may be available and has to deal with the case presented in the writ petition. The respondents cannot take a chance in the context of adversarial litigation that after arguing on the basis of preliminary submissions and failing therein, they would seek further opportunity to file a detailed para-wise reply. It is also not understood how the respondents can reserve their right on their own to file a detailed reply later on. If at all any such recourse is to be taken, appropriate orders have to be obtained from the Court before filing a return by way of making preliminary submission and reserving liberty to file a detailed para-wise reply later on.

10. It is for the Court, in an appropriate case, to grant further liberty to the respondents to file additional pleadings to bring in f