-1- 2025:CGHC:15449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1798 of 2019 M/s Unique Associates, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Sole Proprietor Mukesh Chouradia, S/o Late Kamalchand Chouradia, Aged About 49 Years R/o 53 Aishwarya Residency, Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner 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 Vikash Avum Krishi Vikas Niagam, Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram Telibandha Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) with WPC No. 1908 of 2019 M/s Avni Traders A Proprietorship Firm, Through, Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Rajesh Agrawal, S/o Mr, Virendra Agarawal, Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. 54, Aishwarya, Residency, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---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, Chahttisgarh Rajya Beej Avum Krishi, Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, 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 02.04.2025 1) Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners/firms, engaged in the business of Micronutrient Bio- Pesticides, Chemical Pesticides & Fertilizers, has been debarred by the respondents from participating in the bid floated by them after the issuance of show-cause notices dated 16.04.2019, 14.02.2019, respectively were 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 -3- & 24.05.2019; 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 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.15.05.2019 & 23.05.2019 and an interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners on 16.05.2019 & 24.05.2019, 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 -4- entitled to participate in the bids floated by the respondents. 8) Interim order granted earlier stand vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM