Statutory appellate authorities must decide pending appeals and stay applications before proceeding with fresh property tenders.

The Petitioner Trust occupied land under a 90-year lease granted in 1923 for charitable purposes

In 2009, the Municipal Corporation Dhamtari (Respondent No. 2) cancelled the lease alleging a breach of conditions regarding sub-letting

Following a previous writ petition (WPC No. 3422 of 2010), the High Court directed the Corporation in 2024 to consider the Trust's renewal application

On June 13, 2025, the Corporation rejected the renewal application and subsequently demolished the Trust's structure

The Petitioner filed a statutory appeal and stay application under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, on June 23, 2025

While these remained pending for over six months, the Respondent issued a new Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on February 27, 2026, to develop the land under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model

The Petitioner moved the High Court to quash the NIT and expedite the pending appeal

1. Whether the Court should quash the NIT dated 27.02.2026 issued by the Municipal Corporation during the pendency of the statutory appeal

2. Whether a mandamus should be issued to the Appellate Committee to decide the pending appeal and stay application under the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, in a time-bound manner

The Court primarily considered the statutory appellate framework under Section 403 (Appeals) and Section 404 (Stay of execution of orders) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956

These provisions establish the right of an aggrieved party to challenge Corporation orders before an Appellate Committee and seek interim relief to suspend the operation of the impugned order

The Court observed that the Petitioner had already invoked the prescribed statutory remedy by filing an appeal and a stay application, which had remained unaddressed for approximately nine months

The Court highlighted the prejudice caused by the Respondent's issuance of a fresh NIT for the subject land while the legality of the lease rejection was still being adjudicated by the Appellate Committee

Upon receiving confirmation from the Respondent’s counsel that the Appellate Committee was currently functional, the Court determined that the most efficient relief was to compel the Committee to exercise its jurisdiction

The Court emphasized that the Petitioner had approached the High Court before the expiry of the NIT deadline, necessitating urgent judicial intervention to ensure the statutory appeal was not rendered infructuous by the tender process

The Court noted that this expedited timeline was necessary as the NIT's last date had already expired and the land's status was in flux

The petition was disposed of with these directions