Pending departmental appeals must be decided within two weeks after hearing by a reasoned, speaking order.

The petitioner, a contractor, challenged the action of the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, including blacklisting/debarment from participating in tenders for one year and forfeiture of the security deposit.

The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 3553 of 2026 challenging the action, but withdrew it after submitting a representation and obtaining liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy against the competent authority’s decision

Pursuant to that liberty, the petitioner submitted a representation on 16.07.2026 and reminders on 22.07.2026 and 30.07.2026, alleging that no decision had been taken

During the present proceedings, the State and Municipal Corporation acknowledged that the petitioner’s appeal was pending before the Mayor-in-Council and requested that it be decided in accordance with law

Whether the High Court should issue a direction requiring the Mayor-in-Council to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending appeal against the impugned action

Whether the High Court should adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s challenge concerning blacklisting, debarment, forfeiture of security deposit, restoration to the approved contractors’ list, and permission to complete the remaining work

The Court applied the principle that where a statutory or departmental appeal is pending before the competent authority, the High Court may decline to examine the merits and instead direct the authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law

The authority is required to provide all concerned parties a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned and speaking order

The Court also followed the restraint that, while issuing a procedural mandamus for consideration of a pending representation or appeal, it should not express an opinion on the merits of the dispute

Since the petitioner’s appeal was admittedly pending before the Mayor-in-Council, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by retaining the writ petition or undertaking a merits review at that stage

The appropriate course was to require the competent authority to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, hear all concerned parties, and render a reasoned decision.

The Court therefore confined the relief to expeditious consideration of the pending appeal and expressly refrained from deciding whether the blacklisting, debarment, or forfeiture was lawful

The Mayor-in-Council was directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s pending appeal in accordance with law within two weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order, after granting due and reasonable opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned and speaking order

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the controversy, and there was no order as to costs