1 2025:CGHC:13008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1778 of 2019 1 - Gupta Agro Implements A Partnership Firm, Through Its Partner Namely Pitamber Gupta, S/o Late Shri Purushottam Gupta, Aged About 44 Years, R/o C - 29, Sector 3 Near Heritage Hospital, Akash Gas Line, Devendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... 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 Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.03.2025 1. Mr. Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/firm, engaged in the business of Micronutrient Boi-Pesticides, Chemial Pesticides & Fertilizers, has been debarred by the respondents from participating in the bid floated by them after the issuance of show-cause notices dated 06.02.2019 and 18.04.2019 respectively. He would further submit that the final REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH 2 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. 2. On the other hand, Mr. Animesh Tiwari, 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 petitions against the impugned show- cause notices are not maintainable. He further argues that interim relief was granted in favour of the petitioner on 16.05.2019; therefore, no final decision has been taken by the respondents pursuant to the show cause notices. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 4. 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 five years and why the EMD should not be forfeited. This petition was filed on 13.05.2019 and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 16.05.2019, which is still in operation, therefore, final order could not 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. 5. After going through the impugned show-cause notices, it transpires that notices for blacklisting for a period of five years were issued 3 against the petitioner and period of five years has already expired in April 2023. 6. 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. 7. Resultantly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. The petitioner would be entitled to participate in the bids floated by the respondents. 8. Interim order granted earlier stand vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha