1 2025:CGHC:14224 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1293 of 2022 1 - M/s Medicine Center Through Its Proprietor, Parmanand Agrawal, S/o Late S.L. Agrawal, Aged 48 Years, R/o Sector-5, Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava, Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation, Through Its Mangaging Director, Sector-27, Housing Board, Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Manager (Purcahse And Operation) Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Sector-27, Housing Board, Complex, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For State :- Mr. Santosh Bharat, P.L. For Respondents No.2 & 3 :- Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 25.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the petition seeking following reliefs:- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P/1) regarding blacklisting of the petitioner's firm. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the participation of petitioner, fairly in the advertised Tender and other forthcoming Tenders. 10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent n.2 to refund the penalty amount which has been illegally deducted from other bill amounting to Rs.4,97,931/- 10.4. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the order of blacklisting dated 07.03.2022 as well as the deduction of the bill amount to Rs.4,97,931/-. He submit that the period of blacklisting is already over, as such, he is not challenging the order dated 07.03.2022 at present. He further submits that so far as the deduction of amount pertaining to Rs.4,97,931/- is concerned, he is having grievance to it and prays that the concerned respondent authorities may be directed to consider and redress his grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 submits that they are going to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass 3 appropriate orders in respect of deduction of bill amount to the tune of Rs.4,97,931/-. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to file a representation before the concerned respondent authority for redressal of his grievance which may be directed to be considered and decided within a stipulated time. Upon which, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3 submits that they will consider the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the submissions made by the parties, the petitioner is directed to make a representation for redressal of his grievance along with all the relevant documents before the concerned respondents i.e. respondents No.2 & 3 within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the respondents No.2 & 3, in turn, shall consider and decide the said representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, while passing appropriate orders, within a further period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the said representation. 6. With this observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha