Citation : 2025 Local Law (CG) 865 : 2025:CGHC:55385-DB
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday set aside a fresh tender issued by the Nagar Panchayat of Gharghoda after finding that the municipal body had failed to follow basic procedural fairness before replacing an existing contractor. In an order dated November 13, 2025, a division bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Bibhu Datta Guru said the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) floated on October 7, 2025 could not be sustained against the petitioner, Santosh Agrawal, because no formal termination order had been issued and his representations had not been considered.
The dispute arose from work orders issued to Mr. Agrawal in December 2024 for construction of a shed and a pathway in two wards of Gharghoda. The petitioner told the court he could not begin work because the Nagar Panchayat had not supplied necessary layout plans, and he later sought outstanding payments for prior work. Despite these grievances and a detailed reply filed on September 11, 2025, the council issued a fresh NIT without passing any reasoned order terminating the original contract. The bench observed that issuing a new tender without first cancelling the existing contract by a formal, reasoned order was a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Counsel for the Nagar Panchayat contended the contractor had failed to start work within the contractual two-month period and that the council had passed a resolution to terminate the contract in August 2025. The court, however, noted that the record did not show any formal termination communicated to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the October tender. Because respondent No. 3 itself admitted there was no formal termination order, the court found that the subsequent tender process could not stand in law.
Rejecting the NIT only insofar as it affected Mr. Agrawal, the High Court quashed the tender and allowed the writ petition. The bench granted the Nagar Panchayat liberty to proceed in accordance with law, provided it follows the proper procedure and affords the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before taking any adverse action. The order underscores the court’s insistence that public bodies must follow established procedural safeguards before displacing contractors or restarting procurement processes.
The judgment is a reminder that contractual timelines do not relieve public authorities of their duty to give affected parties a fair hearing and to record reasoned decisions. For municipal administrations, the ruling highlights the importance of clear communication, documented termination orders, and adherence to natural justice when public works and livelihoods are at stake.
Case Details : WPC No. 5654 of 2025, Santosh Agrawal vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others
Counsels : For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Shikhar Shukla, Advocate.
