1 2025:CGHC:21243-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2385 of 2025 M/s Anmol Infrastructure, through Proprietor Anmol Agrawal, S/o Santosh Ku. Agrawal, Aged Around 31 Years, R/o House No. 154 Ward And Agroha Marg, Korba, Pali Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry Of Coal, A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg, New Delhi – 110001 2 - General Manager (Civil) S.E.C.L. Head Office Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - General Manager (Civil) SECL Gevra Area, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 / UOI : Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, CGC on behalf of Mr. R. K. Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / SECL : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.05 .2025 1 Heard Mr. Goutam Khetrpal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Rishabh Deo Singh, learned Central Government Counsel holding brief of Mr. R. K. Mishra, Dy. Solicitor General ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 appearing for the UOI/respondent No.1 and Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 / SECL 2 The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs : “a. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the cancellation order dated 09.04.2024, issued by the Respondent; b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the debarment/banning orders dated 11.04.2024 and 05.12.2024, passed by the Respondent; c. Declare that the impugned actions of the Respondent are illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. d. Direct the Respondent to restore the Petitioner's eligibility to participate in tenders and government contracts. e. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.” 3 The case projected by the petitioner, in brief, is that the Respondent, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), invited bids for the execution of work titled as "Repair of Bituminous Surface of Colony Road at Urja Nagar Colony of Gevra Area (Balance Portion)". Tender ID: 2023_SECL_283645_1. Pursuant to the bidding process, the petitioner was declared as successful bidder and was awarded the aforesaid contract vide Letter of Acceptance (LOA) bearing No. SECL/GA/GM(C)/LOA/TA/24/905 3 dated 01.01.2024. The work site was officially handed over to the Petitioner on 11.01.2024, and the stipulated commencement and completion dates were fixed as 17.01.2024 and 15.05.2024, respectively. The said letter also imposed several preconditions for commencing the work, including submission of signed documentation, deployment list, safety measures, identity proofs of manpower, and insurance policies. It was further stated that non-compliance within 21 days may lead to cancellation of the LOA as per the terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). It has been submitted that due to unavoidable procedural and administrative issues, there was an alleged delay in depositing the Additional Performance Security Deposit (APSD) of 18,98,841/- and Performance Security Deposit (PSD) of 4,95,181/-, which however was not due to any deliberate act or negligence on the part of the petitioner. Despite the petitioner's willingness and readiness to commence work, a final notice dated 24.02.2024 was issued by the respondent alleging failure to start work and threatening penal action including forfeiture of EMD and cancellation of the LOA under Clause 6.1 of the contract. The petitioner vide letter dated 02.03.2024 submitted before the respondent No.3 that the execution of the sanctioned work the repair of the bituminous surface of the colony road at Urja Nagar, Gevra Area has been hindered due to an unforeseen disruption in the supply of Gitti material and submitted that work shall commence promptly upon restoration of material supply. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 4 05.03.2024 alleging non-deposit of APSD and PSD under Clause 17 of the LOA, and further threatened rescission of the LOA and debarment under Clause 4.2 of the General Terms and Conditions (GTC). It has been further pleaded that without affording a meaningful opportunity of hearing and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the respondent issued cancellation order dated 09.04.2024, rescinding the LOA, forfeiting the EMD, and debarring the petitioner from future tenders and subsequently, vide letter dated 11.04.2024, the petitioner was further banned from participating in tenders of SECL for a period of 12 months, citing Clause 4.2 of the GTC, in a mechanical and arbitrary manner. 4 Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned cancellation and debarment orders have been issued without affording the petitioner a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing, in gross violation of the principles of audi alteram partem and natural justice. He further submitted that Clause 4.2 do not authorize the respondents to impose penal consequences such as blacklisting or debarring the Petitioner from future tenders, without initiation of separate proceedings following due process of law. He also submitted that the delay in commencement of work was attributable to administrative lapses and failure of the respondents to ensure site readiness, rather than any deliberate act of omission on the part of the petitioner. He contended that the invocation of Clause 4.2 of the GTC and Clause 6.1 of the contract is wholly arbitrary, excessive, and 5 disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned debarment amounts to a civil death of the petitioner's business operations in government contracts and has been imposed without application of mind or examination of mitigating factors. He pointed out that petitioner, through representation dated 24.12.2024, clarified that he had made all necessary preparations for execution of the work including mobilization of men, machinery, and material. However, site clearance and essential access permissions were not granted by the Respondent's field officials despite repeated verbal and written representations, thereby rendering physical commencement of work impossible. 5 On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondents /SECL opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that despite issuance of four notices on 24.02.2024, 05.03.2024, 09.04.2024 and 11.04.2024, when the petitioner has not replied any of the notices and also not completed the work assigned to him, the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 has been passed debarring the petitioner from participating in future tenders in concerned Subsidiary / CIL for a period of 01 (one) year. 6 Considering the fact that after issuance of four notices i.e. on 24.02.2024, 05.03.2024, 09.04.2024 and 11.04.2024, when the petitioner has not replied any of the notices and also not completed the work assigned to him, the impugned order dated 6 05.12.2024 has been passed debarring the petitioner from participating in future tenders in concerned Subsidiary / CIL for a period of 01 (one) year and further considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of almost 05 months before this Court, we do not find any good ground for interference in the present matter. 7 Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra