1 2025:CGHC:7046 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1753 of 2019 1 - Sai Agro Tech, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Namely Devanand Dudhe S/o Raoji Dudhe, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Yawatmal, Tahsil Yawatmal, District Yawatmal, Maharashtra., Maharashtra ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Uttam Verma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- the impugned show cause notices dated 18.04.2019 & 14.02.2019 issued by the Managing Director (Annex.P/1 & P/2) and the respondents may kindly be directed not to take any action against the petitioner's firm. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/firm, engaged in the business of Agricultural Bio- Pesticides and Insecticides, has been debarred by the respondents from participating in the bid floated by them after the issuance of show-cause notices dated 18.04.2019 and 14.02.2019, respectively. He would further submit that the final show cause notice dated 18.04.2019 was issued by respondent No. 2 with the intent to ban the petitioner's business, blacklist the petitioner/firm and confiscate the earnest money deposit (EMD). However, no decision has either been made or an adverse order passed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner till date. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would oppose and contend that no adverse order has been passed against the petitioner; only show-cause notices were issued, therefore, the instant petition against the impugned show-cause notices is not maintainable. He further argues that interim relief 3 was granted in favour of the petitioner on 15.05.2019; therefore, no final decision has been taken by the respondents pursuant to the show cause notices. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 5. From a perusal of the impugned show cause notices (Annexure- P/1 and P/2), it is evident that the petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notices stating therein why an order of blacklisting should not be passed for a period of two years and why the EMD should not be forfeited. This petition was filed on 06.05.2019, and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 15.05.2019, which is still in effect, therefore, no final order could be passed by the respondents in respect to the impugned show-cause notices; the petitioner could not participate in any bids floated by the respondents due to the impugned notices issued by the respondents. 6. After going through the impugned show-cause notices, it transpires that notice for blacklisting for a period of two years was issued against the petitioner, which has already expired in April 2021. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the purpose of the show-cause notices issued against the petitioner has become redundant; thus, the impugned show-cause notices are hereby quashed/set-aside. -4- 8. Resultantly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to participate in the bids floated by the respondents. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi