2026:CGHC:1865-DB Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWALD

2 1 0 0 a 2 : t 3 e 6 2 : .0 :4 2 4 .04 NAFR +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 111 of 2026

1 - M/s Deshkar Advertising A Proprietorship Firm Through- Its Proprietor Vishal Deshkar Aged About 46 Years, Son Of Late Arun Deshkar Having The Registered Office Address At Anupam Nagar, Raipur Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Municipal Corporation Raipur, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Superintendent (Advertisement) Municipal Corporation Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prafull Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.

Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent 1 and 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Division Bench:

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

13 .01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Prafull Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned appearing for the Respondent No.1 and 2.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling the relevant records from the court below pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal.

10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue quash the letter dated 07.08.2025 of termination of tender & work order which was issued to the petitioner and further direct the respondent authorities to withdraw from new tender proceedings.

10.3 Cost of the proceedings.

10.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts & circumstances of case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm engaged in the business of advertisement and is entitled to protection of fundamental and constitutional rights. The respondent authority issued an NIT dated 14.12.2021 for establishment of a double- facing unipole at Katora Talab Garden for a period of five years. The petitioner participated in the tender process and was awarded the work order on 31.03.2022 after depositing 30% of the accepted tender amount and executing the requisite agreements. As per the terms and conditions, the remaining installments were to be paid periodically, with surcharge applicable in case of delay, and the petitioner duly paid all amounts, including surcharge wherever applicable, up to May 2026. During the subsistence of the contract, the then proprietor of the petitioner firm, Late Arun Deshkar, suffered prolonged illness and expired on 30.11.2024, resulting in temporary blockage of the firm’s bank accounts and delay in payment of certain installments, which was duly intimated to the respondent authority. After completion of legal formalities, the son of the deceased proprietor took over the proprietorship. However, without specifying any details of alleged default and without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing any show cause notice, the respondent authority arbitrarily cancelled the petitioner’s tender by letters dated 08.07.2025 and 07.08.2025. Despite accepting the petitioner’s explanation, receiving detailed payment records, and even accepting future installments up to 31.05.2026, the respondent authority issued a fresh tender for the same site on 22.12.2025, reflecting predetermined intent. The impugned action, taken in violation of principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner, who has already invested substantial amounts under the validly awarded contract. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the termination of the petitioner’s tender and work order is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of principles of natural justice, as no show