##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:20107-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPC No. 1109 of 2020

Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o P.D. Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 4

Ambedkar Nagar Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District :

Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Urban Administration And

Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar,

Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - The Director Directorate Of Urban Administration And Development

Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

3 - The Collector District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur,

Chhattisgarh

4 - The Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Patthalgaon District Jashpur

Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

... Respondent

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate

For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy

Advocate General

Digitally

signed by

VED

VED PRAKASH

P DR EA WK AA NS GH AND DE atW e:ANGAN For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate

2026.05.04

20:46:40

+0530

2

Hon'ble Shr i Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ram esh Sinha, C.J .

30/04/2026

1.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by

respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a

period of three years and his security deposit has been forfeited in

relation to the tender work allotted to him. It is the case of the petitioner

that the impugned action has been taken without granting him a proper

and effective opportunity of hearing, whereas the respondents contend

that the petitioner was repeatedly called upon to comply with the

tender conditions by depositing the differential amount within time, but

he failed to do so, resulting in the consequential action impugned

herein.

2.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following

reliefs:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to set-aside the order dated 04.02.2020

and further be pleased to direct the respondent-

authorities to allow the petitioner to complete the

construction work as per tender.

10.2 To kindly grant any other relief which may be

deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of

the instant case.”

3

3.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, a registered

contractor under the respondent department, was allotted a work

contract pursuant to a tender issued by the respondent No. 4 on

17.09.2019 for construction of C.C. Road at Ward No. 8, Patthalgaon.

The petitioner’s tender was accepted and work was accordingly

allotted to him vide order dated 19.11.2019. It is the case of the

petitioner that subsequently a demand was raised requiring him to

deposit the difference amount of ₹1,28,665/- on account of variation

between the Schedule of Rates and the quoted bid, and a

communication dated 20.01.2020 was received by him on 24.01.2020

directing deposit of the said amount within five days.

******* It is further the case of the petitioner that immediately upon

receipt of the said communication, he deposited the demanded

amount through T.D.R. on 28.01.2020, which was accepted by the

respondents without any objection. However, despite such deposit, the

respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 04.02.2020

whereby the security deposit of the petitioner was forfeited and he was

blacklisted for a period of three years. The petitioner challenges the

said action primarily on the ground that it was passed without affording

any proper opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of

natural justice.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order

dated 04.02.2020, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for a

period of three years and his security deposit has been forfeited, is

wholly arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. It is contended that

4

the petitioner had substantially complied w