1 2025:CGHC:3068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 333 of 2025 1 - Dilip Kumar Dinkar S/o Churaman Lal Dinkar Aged About 48 Years R/o B-400, Adarsh Nagar Kusmunda, Kusmunda, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, C.G. 2 - General Manager /staff Officer (E And M) South Eastern Coalfiled Limited, Gevra Area, Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/s : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 17/01/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order dated 23/12/2024, by which, the petitioner has been debarred to participate in the future tender of SECL for a period of two years from the date of issuance of this letter. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.01.20 13:33:57 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 23/12/2024 has been passed pursuance to a show cause notice dated 27/08/2024, which was sent through e-mail to the petitioner, but due to some medical illness, the reply to the show cause notice 27/08/2024 could not be submitted by the petitioner, however, the SECL/respondents by considering the earlier application/representation to the SECL passed the order of banning the petitioner to participate in the tender of the SECL, which amounts to the violation of the principles of natural justice. He further submits that the petitioner has not got proper opportunity to explain the cause, on which, the petitioner has been debarred to participate in future tender of the SECL. 3. Learned counsel for the SECL/respondents, on advance copy, would submit that though the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but he failed to submit his explanation to the show cause notice and by considering the earlier request and representation made by the petitioner, impugned decision has been taken and the order has been passed on 23/12/2024. 4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 23/12/2024. 5. The said decisions has been taken by the respondent pursuance to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner dated 27/08/2024. It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to submit his explanation/representation to the show cause notice dated 3 27/08/2024, where there is a clear mentioning of proposed panel action of debarring was there. The petitioner failed to submit the explanation to the show cause notice though it was received by him due to his illness, however, the SECL/respondents proceeded in the matter and by considering some earlier representation made by the petitioner, the impugned decision of banning has been taken which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The SECL/respondents ought to have issued a fresh notice to the petitioner, however, they have taken a decision without waiting for the explanation sought by the SECL from the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed with a liberty to the SECL/respondents to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and on the event of issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner is directed to submit its explanation/reply within a period of ten days and the SECL/respondents shall take a decision on the same, within a period of further twenty days. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep