-1- 2025:CGHC:13592 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1962 of 2019 M/s Maa Aadi Shakti Seeds & Biotech Industries, Address- Near Shiv Mandir Mahuwapara, Fundurdihari Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. Pin Code- 497001. Through Its : Partner Smt. Shakuntala Singh, W/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Near Shiv Mandir Mahuwapara, Fundurdihari, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgrh. Pin Code - 497001. ... Petitioner versus 1- Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Through Its Managing Director, Beej Bhawan Ravigram, Telibandha Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisarh. 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Beej Bhawan, Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.03.2025 1) Heard on admission. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 2) Mr. Sandeep Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/firm, engaged in the business of Micronutrient Bio-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 30.05.2018 and 24.05.2019 respectively. He would further submit that the final show cause notice dated 24.05.2019 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, 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 10.06.2019; 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 -3- five years and why the EMD should not be forfeited. This petition was filed on 31.05.2019 and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 10.06.2019, 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. 6) After going through the impugned show-cause notices, it transpires that notices for blacklisting for a period of five years were issued against the petitioner and period of five years has already expired in April 2023. 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. Resultantly, the instant petition is hereby allowed at the motion stage itself. 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 NADIM