Natural justice principles require an opportunity to be heard before punitive actions are taken, particularly in contract termination cases.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA

th

ON THE 26 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 38773 of 2025 SIDDIVINAYAK ENTERPRISES Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Agrawal - Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER Assailing the order dated 01/08/2025 passed by respondent No.4, whereby contract of the petitioner has been cancelled and subsequent appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 01/08/2025 which was dismissed on 09/09/2025, present petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a duly registered firm and works through out the State of Madhya Pradesh. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by respondent No.2 for award of contract for management of two wheeler and four wheeler parking stand at Gadarwara Railway Station. Petitioner participated in said e-auction which was held on 09/06/2023. He was awarded contract on 26/06/2023 for the period from 01/07/2023 to 30/06/2026. Respondents have issued a Standard Conditions of Contract. Petitioner was running parking stand since from 26/06/2023 and completed two years of his contract successfully without there being any complaint made against him. Suddenly, on 12/06/2025, a notice was issued Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR to the petitioner that during inspection on 12/04/2025, certain irregularities were found. He was fined for Rs.2,000/-. Petitioner deposited the said fine amount to avoid any confrontation. Again vide order dated 01/08/2025, contract of the petitioner has been cancelled without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner placing reliance upon Clause 18 of Standard Conditions of Contract and was directed to remove his belongings alongwith furniture. He immediately preferred an Appeal in terms of Clause 16 of Standard Conditions of Contract, however the same was not considered properly by the Authorities and during pendency of Appeal, new tender has been floated on 14/08/2025. He immediately preferred a Writ Petition being W.P. No.34331/2025 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28/08/2025 on the concession made by respondent No.3 that no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner till the Appeal is finally decided.

Thereafter, the Appeal was decided by the impugned order.

3. It is argued that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the Appeal including the ground of no opportunity being granted to the petitioner while passing the termination order. Therefore, this petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore Bench on 11/11/2020 in the case of Shri Charbhuja Travels Vs. State of M.P. and Others in W.P. No.12603/2020, wherein this Court has considered the aspect that even in contract matters, opportunity of hearing was required and principles of natural justice had to be followed in the matter.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance notice has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order pointing out the fact that petitioner has already been penalized on earlier occasion for deficiencies being committed by him. He has also deposited the fine of Rs.2,000/- which is not disputed by him and now again during the inspection conducted it was found that certain irregularities were committed by petitioner. Therefore, in terms of Clause 18 of the Contract, the Authorities have terminated the contract of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was required to be granted to the petitioner. It is further contended that no Appeal is preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Authorities on 01/08/2025. It was only a representati