1 2025:CGHC:11079 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1784 of 2019 • M/s Allwin Industries A Partnership Firm, Having Its Branch Office Of At 17, Naveen Bazar, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh And Having Its Head Office At 307, 4th Floor, Dawa Bazar, R & T Marg, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, Through Its Partner Namely Pramod Hardia, S/o Murarilal Hardia, Aged About 53 Years, R/o B-715, Kesharbag Road, Scheme 103, Indore, District : Indore, Madhya Pradesh --- Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPC No. 2055 of 2019 • M/s Microplex India, A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Head Office At 36, Mohta Market, Main Road, Wardha (Maharashtra), Through Its Proprietor Namely Shrikant G. Rathi, S/o Late Gopilal M. Rathi Aged About 56 Years, R/o 9, Bahubali Nagar, Nagpur Road Wardha, Maharashtra ---Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 WPC No. 2084 of 2019 • M/s Microplex India, A Proprietorship Firm Having Its Head Office At 36 Mohta Market, Main Road Wardha (Maharashtra) Through Its Proprietor Namely Shrikant G. Rathi, S/o Late Gopilal M. Rathi, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 9, Bahubali Nagar, Nagpur Road, Wardha Maharastra ---Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Respondents And WPC No. 2147 of 2019 • M/s Microplex Biotech And Agrochem Pvt. Ltd. A Company Registered Under The Companies Act. 1956 Having Its Registered At 3, Mohta Market Main Road, Wardha (Maharashtra), Through Its Director Namely Smt. Preeti Rathi, W/o Shrikant G. Rathi, R/o 9, Bahubali Nagar, Nagpur, Raod, Wardha, Maharashtra ---Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPC No. 2149 of 2019 • M/s Microplex Biotech Agrochem Pvt. Ltd. A Company Registered Under The Companies Act. 1956, Having Its Registered At 3, Mohta Market, Main Road Wardha (Maharashtra), Through Its Director Namely Smt. Preeti Rathi, W/o Shrikant G. Rathi R/o 9, Bahubali Nagar, Nagpur Road, Wardha, Maharashtra. ---Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. Mr. Sandeep Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners/firms, 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, 14.02.2019 and 18.04.2019, 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 petitioners’ business, blacklist the petitioners/firms 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 petitioners 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 petitioners; 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 petitioners on 16.05.2019 & 01.07.2019 ; therefore, no final decision has been taken by the respondents pursuant to the show cause notices. 4 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 petitioners were 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. These petitions were filed on different dates i.e. 13.05.2019 & 19.06.2019 and an interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners on 01.07.2019 & 16.05.2019, which are still in operation, therefore, final orders could not be passed by the respondents in respect to the impugned show-cause notices; the petitioners 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 against the petitioners 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 petitioners has become redundant; thus, the impugned show-cause notices are hereby quashed/set-aside. 7. Resultantly, the instant petitions are hereby allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to participate in the bids floated by the respondents. 8. Interim order granted earlier stand vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti