1 WPC No.4468 of 2025 2025:CGHC:42296-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4468 of 2025 M/s C.B. Patel A Partnership Firm Registered Address E-9, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh Pin Code - 491002 Through Its Partner Smt. Gita Patel W/o Shri Hitesh Bhai Patel, Aged About 52 Years, R/o E-9, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District - Durg Chhattisgarh Pin Code - 491002 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited (Sail) Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi, Pin Code - 110003 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Director-In-Charge, Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh Pin Code 490001 3 - Executive Director (Works) Bhilai Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh Pin Code 490001 4 - General Manager (In Charge) Universal Rail Mill (Urm), Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh Pin Code – 490001 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.22 10:37:33 +0530 2 WPC No.4468 of 2025 5 - Corporate Materials Management Group Steel Authority Of India Limited (Sail), Through The Chairman And Managing Director, Steel Authority Of India Limited (Sail), Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi Pin Code 110003 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 21/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filled for following reliefs: “a) Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. b) Hold that the action of the Respondent Authorities in issuance of the impugned Suspension Order dated 04.08.2025 (ANNNEXURE -P/1) which in fact is a Suspension-cum-Banning Order, is bad in law. c) Hold that the impugned the impugned Suspension Order dated 04.08.2025 (ANNNEXURE - P/1) which in fact is a Suspension-cum-Banning Order, has been issued by the Respondent Authorities with a premeditated, predetermined and closed mind and thus, is untenable in the eyes of law and accordingly, deserves to be quashed and set aside. d) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside 3 WPC No.4468 of 2025 the impugned Suspension Order dated 04.08.2025 (ANNNEXURE - P/1) which in fact is a Suspension- cum-Banning Order. e) Hold and Declare that the Clauses/provisions specifically Clause 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, & 5.7 of the impugned 'Guidelines on Banning of business dealings' (ANNEXURE - P/2) effective from 01.01.2022 including the Revision 2: Effective from 04.05.2024 are contrary to and in teeth of the Judgements and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and deserves to be struck down. F) Strike Down the Clauses/provisions specifically Clause 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, & 5.7 of the impugned 'Guidelines on Banning of business dealings' (ANNEXURE – P/2) g) Grant the cost of the petition to the Petitioner. h) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. “ 2. (A) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Suspension Order does not reveal any specific reasons for initiation of Banning Procedure against the Petitioner. He would submit that the so called enquiry conducted against the petitioner is an ex parte enquiry because the same has been conducted in an illegal and arbitrary manner that too without following the due process of law. In fact, issuance of the show 4 WPC No.4468 of 2025 cause notice is now only to fulfill the empty formalities. He would submit that the present is a classic case of appeal from caesar to caesar’s wife because the appellate authority itself sanctioned initiation of banning of business dealing of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the remedy of appeal so provided to the petitioner is neither efficacious nor effective as the same is just an empty formality with no scope of substantial justice to be delivered. He further submits that in cases where a constitutional right is infringed, writs would ordinarily be the appropriate remedy. (B) Learned counsel further submits that the NIT dated 29.11.2022 prescribes the guidelines for banning of business dealings with effect from 01.01.2022 ( Annexure P-2). By referring the said guidelines, learned counsel would submit that the guidelines dated 04.06.2021 relied by the respondents will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. He would submit that the suspension of business dealings with the petitioner during the decision of the banning committee itself is a ban imposed upon the petitioner and as such in absence of show cause notice, the suspension of business dealings with the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 04.08.2025 is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. (I) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the aforesaid submisson of the petitioner and submits that the 5 WPC No.4468 of 2025 impugned order which is under challenge is an order of suspension which has been passed prior to taking decision for banning the petitioner. He would submit that the committee who has to pass an order of banning has decided to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and final decision about banning of the petitioner will be taken only after receipt of the response of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the order of suspension itself reflected that the committee has to take a decision about the banning of the petitioner and before such decision the order of suspension has been passed which is temporary in nature, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that it is a premature petition. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner can only challenge the decision of banning if the same will be taken against him and for the said purpose also the petitioner has to approach the appropriate appellate authority of the BSP. (II) Learned counsel would further submit that the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 itself speaks that looking to the certain allegations of serious nature against the petitioner, the banning committee has to examine the said allegation and a show cause notice in this regard is being issued separately and the banning committee would examine the allegations and till then the business dealings with the petitioner has been suspended with 6 WPC No.4468 of 2025 effect from 04.08.2025 for a period of 6 months or till the decision of the banning committee, whichever is earlier. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. From bare perusal it is evident that the impugned order has been passed on 04.08.2025 under the heading of ‘suspension order in respect of business dealings’ levelling certain allegations that (i) non compliance of minimum wage payment, bonus payment and AWA; (ii) forged/fabricated documents as proof of payment of SDC; (iii) forged and misinterpretation of cheques; and (iv) proof of payment of bonus not provided by contractor, payment of bonus cannot be established. By said order impugned, the business dealing with the petitioner has been suspended w.e.f. 04.08.2025 for a period of six months or till the decision of the management, whichever is earlier. In the order impugned, only the business dealing has been suspended. So far as banning of the petitioner is concerned, the matter placed before the Standing Banning Committee of BSP and in the meanwhile the business dealing of the petitioner has been suspended. If the show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, response to the same is required to be submitted by the petitioner and thereafter, if the banning committee decided to impose ban upon the petitioner, he is required to avail the appropriate remedy of appeal before the appropriate appellate authority of BSP as prescribed in the 7 WPC No.4468 of 2025 guidelines as filed by the petitioner i.e. Annexure P-2. 6. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 8. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 9. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies as may be available to the petitioner under the office order of the SAIL, BSP i.e. Annexure P-2. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti