5^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR bIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. bHIRENbRA MISHRA <& HON. MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ Writ Petition No. 2052 of 2005 IKII»»^1 Petitioner R.K. Jaiswal Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh <& anr ORDER FOR CONSIDERATEON Sd/- JU &GE Oj .04.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTCCE R.L. JHANWAR <^,<^<-rr<^^ ^r Sd/- R.L. JUanwar Judge POST FOR ORDERS ON j5-04-2009 Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge ^ s& HIGM COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON. MR. DHIRENDRA MISHRA, & HON. MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ Writ Petition No. 2052 of 2005 (Petition under Art-icle 226 of the Constitution of India) Petitioner Respondents R.K. Jaiswal, S/o Tikaram Jaiswal, Aged about 48, UA"-Class Contractor, R/o Bhanupratappur, Distt. Kanker. Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Local Government Deptt., D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur C.G. 2. Municipal Council, Bhanupratappur, Through Chief Municipal Officer, Bhanupratappur, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker. Present: Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Harit, by. Advocate General for respondent No.l Mr. Sanjay K Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. ORDER (Passed on ^..4.2009) Per Dhirendra Mishra, J; 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition and prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.3.2005 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent No.2-Nagar Panchayat, Bhanupratappur has refused to issue tender form to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was earlier allotted construction work of Park under *Pusph Vatika Udyan Yozna' and his contract was cancelled by the Council for breach of terms of agreement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier work allotted to the petitioner could not be completed as there was a dispute regarding ownership of the land between the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sambalpur and the Nagar Panchayat, Bhanupratappur. The petitioner had apprised this fact to respondent No.2 vide his reply of Annexure P-4, however, without considering his reply the contract was cancelled and security amount deposited by the petitioner was forfeited by respondent No.2 vide Annexure P-5 dated 20.8.2004. He further submits that refusal to issue tender form by respondent No.2 for the subsequent tender work on the ground of one default in the past amounts to blacklisting of the petitioner and the same is not permissible without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. ^^Smt^«^* ^^^. 5^ In these circumstances, the order of Annexure P-9 dated 23.3.2005, whereby issuance of tender form has been refused, deserves to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Harit, learned beputy Advocate General for respondent No.l-State and Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Municipal Council, Bhanupratappur, contended that the petitioner was allotted construction work of park under Pushp Vatika Udyan Yozna' in the past, the petitioner did not complete the work within time despite several notices and therefore, his contract was cancelled and security deposits of the petitioner was forfeited. The cancellation of contract work and forfeiture of security deposit has attained finality. Rule 139 (2) of the C.G. Municipal Accounts Rules, 1971 (for short 'Rules, 1971') mandates that contracts shall not be given to the persons who may have failed to complete their previous contracts of whatever nature within the stipulated time and amount. Keeping in view the above provisions, tender form for subsequent work was not issued to the petitioner which is strictly in accordance with the statutory rules framed under Sections 355 (2), 113 and 338 (2) of the C.G. Municipalities Act, 1961 and the same does not call for interference. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not complete the construction work of park under Pusph Vatika Udyan Yozna allotted to him by the Nagar Panchayat, Bhanupratappur, therefore, the contract awarded to the petitioner was cancetled and security amount deposited by the petitioner against the above work was forfeited in the year 2004 vide Annexure P-5 dated 20.8.2004, as per resolution of the Council, and the same has attained finality. In view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 139 of the Rules, 1971, we are of the opinion that the action of respondent No.2 in not issuing tender form to the petitioner for subsequent work cannot be faulted. 6. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, there is no substance in the instant petition, the same deserves to be dismissed ond it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. --——--^-^_ Roshc Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge