Tanishqa Infratech Through Its Proprietor Himanshu Tyagi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90338
1 WP-40012-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
th
ON THE 4 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 40012 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC010710012026
TANISHQA INFRATECH THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR HIMANSHU
TYAGI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shri Shashank Shekhar - Senior Advocate assisted with Shri
Bhoopesh Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Dharmanshu Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Ms. Preeti Pathak Mishra - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India while praying for following reliefs:
"(i) It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and
to set-aside/quash impugned Show Cause Notice dt.18.09.2026
contained in Annexure P/2 as well as impugned Notice
dt.12.09.26 contained in Annexure P/9 issued by the respondent
no.3 in the interest of justice.
( ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari and to quash and set aside impugned the Letter
No. 3135/Rajaswa/2026 dated 02.09.2026 issued by the
Respondent Nagar Parishad, insofar as the same seeks to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:06:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90338
2 WP-40012-2026
reduce/alter the contractual collection/enforcement rate from
1,000/- per vehicle to ₹* 500/- per vehicle, and consequently direct
the Respondents to restore, recognize and implement the rate of
1,000/- per vehicle as stipulated under the original tendered
commercial and contractual arrangement, on the basis of which
the Petitioner submitted its financial bid; and further restrain the
Respondents from enforcing, recovering or otherwise giving effect
to the reduced rate of ₹ 500/- per vehicle, the same being contrary
to the original contractual terms and incapable of being
unilaterally altered to the financial prejudice of the Petitioner
without lawful authority and due contractual modification.
(iii) It is further most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondents to hand over the petitioner all the sites
as mentioned in the contract in full operational condition after
removing all physical hindrances and encroachments.
(iv) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case,
may also kindly be passed, in the interest of justice."
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
was awarded a contract for four-wheeler vehicle parking for the years 2026-
2027. The petitioner participated in the proceeding initiated by the
respondent i.e., the Nagar Parishad. The petitioner's bid was accepted and a
parking licence agreement was executed between the petitioner and
respondent No.1. However, the physical and operational condition of the
parking site was different from the capacity and operational conditions were
virtually unviable. Therefore, the petitioner brought the deficiency to the
notice of the respondents through various representations. However, the
respondent neither made any effort to carry out any joint
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:06:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90338
3 WP-40012-2026
inspection/measurement of the property of the five parking sites nor
ascertained the actual usable parking capacity and therefore the capacity as
projected initially was, in reality, reduced. The petitioner was subjected to
penalty as well. Instead of considering the petitioner's request, the impugned
notices dated 18.09.2026 contained in Annexure P/8 and 12.09.2026
contained in Annexure P/9 have been issued by the respondents. It is
threatened that if the petitioner does not deposit the first instalment as per the
agreement, the contract would be cancelled. It is further contended by the
senior counsel that it is a case where the impugned issuance of notice dated
18.09.2026 (Annexure P/8) is an exercise which, on the face of it, is high-
handed and mechanical, without dealing with the present petitioner's
representation dated 17.08.2026 contained in Annexure P/4, the impugned
notices have been issued. The petitioner, under compulsion, was entered into
the agreement which is contained in Annexure P/6 dated 19.08.2026. The
petitioner even duly intimated the authorities that the petitioner having found
no other alternative, was compelled to send "Stop Instruction" to the bank in
regard to encashment of the cheque submitted by the present petitioner with
the respondents. However, the respondents without adverting to the
petitioner's request, have directly issued the impugned notices.
3 . Per contra, counsel for the respondent No.3/ Municipal Council
submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed inasmuch as a return in the
matter has been filed. The petitioner herein gave a cheque of Rs.1901231/-.
A copy of the cheque has been brought on record at page No.24 of the reply
of the respondent No.3. The said cheque was dishonoured on the instruction
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:06:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90338
4 WP-40012-2026
of the present petitioner which is evident from perusal of Annexure R/1. As
the cheque in question was dishonoured, the notices have been issued to the
petitioner. The notice to the petitioner dated 23.09.2026 contained in
Annexure R/2 clearly reflects that the petitioner was being called upon to
deposit the amount towards the first instalment. Another notice to the
petitioner was issued on 25.09.2026 contained in Annexure R/3. However,
no amount was deposited by the petitioner on the contrary, a legal notice was
sent by the present petitioner which was duly replied by the respondent by
Annexure R/4. There is ample parking space, and on account of dishonour of
cheque, the respondents have suffered losses and it is a loss to the public
exchequer. It is therefore contended by the counsel for the respondent No.3
that as the petitioner in terms of the agreement has not deposited the amount,
the notice impugned has been rightly issued.
4. No other point is argued or expressed by both the parties.
5. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the
record.
6. A perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner entered into an
agreement on 19.08.2026 which is contained in Annexure P/6. According to
the petitioner, before entering into the agreement, he made a representation
on 17.08.2026, contained in Annexure P/4 and had intimated the authority
the petitioner's grievance regarding the inadequate space for parking. Yet, the
fact remains that immediately after two days, the petitioner entered into an
agreement on 19.08.2026.
7. Clause 6 and 8 of the said agreement are reproduced as under:-
"6. 25
अिधकतम बोलीकता क जमा अमानत रािश एवं ितशत रािश छोड़कर शेष बची
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:06:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90338
5 WP-40012-2026
07
रािश क समान क तो म येक माह क एक से दस ता #रख तक जमा करना होगी। इस
07
हेतु चार प हया वाहन पा क* ग शु +क सं ,हण का चाज लेने के पूव अ ,ीम चेक रा /ीकृत
ब 1क के चेक ह 2 मा 3य कये जावेगे । 4जसके आहरण पर होने वाला 6यय ठेका ा8कता को
GST GST R-1
वहन करना होगा। साथ ह 2 रािश ितमाह जमा कर क छाया ित िनकाय
काया लय म जमा करना अिनवाय होगा। इसम कसी कार क छूट दान नह 2 क जावेगी।
*
8.
चेक बाउंस होने पर िनयमानुसार काय वाह2 क जाकर त काल जमा अमानत रािश ज 8 क
जाकर ठेका िनर <त कया जावेगा। 4जसक कोई सूचना नह 2ं द 2 जावेगी एवं पुनः िनलामी क
काय वाह2 क जावेगी। 4जसम होने वाले 6यय एवं घाटे क वसूली हेतु िनयमानुसार काय वाह2
"
<ता@वत क जावेगी ।
8. A perusal of Clause 6, it is evident that the bidder was required to
deposit the entire bid amount in seven instalments and seven post-dated
cheques were required to be issued. According to petitioner, all seven
cheques were given, and the cheque for the first instalment of Rs.1901231/-
has also been cancelled, which is evident from perusal of Annexures R/1 and
R/2. The consequences of dishonour of cheque is also clearly mentioned in
Clause 8 of the aforesaid agreement. As per Clause 8 of the said agreement,
the respondents reserved the right with themselves to forfeit the security
deposit and also cancel the contract. The notice contained in Annexure P/8
dated 18.09.2026 is apparently reflect that the respondents have called upon
the petitioner to deposit the amount of the first installment and have also
informed the petitioner that, in the event of failure, the contract itself would
be cancelled.
9. Such a notice in the considered view of this Court flows from
Clause 8 of the said agreement. The said agreement has been entered into by
the present petitioner without any demur or protest and if the parties are
exercising their respective rights which flow from the different terms and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:06:01
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:90338
6 WP-40012-2026
conditions of the agreement, interference with such rights is impermissible
unless the allegation of mala fides or arbitrariness is proved against such
party.
10. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis, the impugned notice
has been issued by the respondent in terms of Clause 8 of the agreement and
therefore the exercise of right in terms of agreement by one party can not be
interfered with by this Court in absence of allegation of mala fides or
arbitrariness.
11. Resultantly, this Court does not find any merit in the petition.
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
sp
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SAVITRI PATEL
Signing time: 06-11-2026
15:06:01