1 WPC No.5695 of 2024 2025:CGHC:4276 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5695 of 2024 1. Rakesh Sachdeva S/o Ramesh Sachdeva Aged About 32 Years R/o Ganj Para, Ward No.19 Mahasamund. District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health Department , Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G) 2. Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Dhamtari, Dist. Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District Hospital Raipur, District Hospital Raipur (C.G.) 4. Dr. Prakash Kumar Gupta, Retired Civil Surgeon, S/o Late Dr. Ram Prasad Gupta Aged About 66 Years R/o MIG 245 First Floor, CG Housing Board Colony, Near Gurudwara, Post Office Tatibandh, Raipur , District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Collector Cum- President Jeevandeep Samiti District Hospital, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Upasana Mehta, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Shri R.K. Manikpuri, Advocate Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 2 WPC No.5695 of 2024 23/1/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking setting aside the order dated 17-10-2024 (Annexure – P/1) and 24-2-2022 (Annexure – P/2) as also the decision dated 15-2-2022 (Annexure – P/8) and further seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to treat the petitioner not blacklisted for future contracts on the basis of order dated 24-2-2022. The petitioner also seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to take action against the responsible officers and employees. 2. (i) Facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner was declared L-l for food supply work in Government Hospital, Raipur, but due to some personal difficulty petitioner shown his inability to execute the work and requested to refund of security amount of Rs.1.00 lac, but vide order dated 24.02.2022 petitioner was imposed with penalty of Rs.1.00 lac and his deposit was forfeited. Since the petitioner got other tender works, he has not challenged the forfeiture order and, as such, it attained finality. (ii) According to the petitioner, twice information was sought by two rival contractors about the penalty of petitioner and it was informed under the RTI Act that Rs.1.00 lac penalty is imposed upon the petitioner but he is not blacklisted. Despite the said fact, after lapse of more than two years when the petitioner filled tender for food supply work of Government hospital Dhamtari the bid of petitioner was not opened by respondent No.2 on the ground that he is blacklisted by order dated 24.02.2022 bearing same number, date and signature. (iii) When the petitioner inquired about the same and also obtained information under the RTI Act, it is revealed that two orders have been 3 WPC No.5695 of 2024 passed bearing same number, sign and date by the respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 was holding charge of respondent No. 3 post and despite petitioner was directed to black listed for Government hospital Pandari & Matri-shishu Hospital Kalibadi Raipur only, the same is not mentioned in the order and respondent No.2 returned the bid of petitioner and he is not allowed to participate in any other contract in the entire State. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner withdrew his candidature from L-1 status, therefore, earnest money amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner was forfeited and communication dated 24.02.2022 in this regard was made to him by the respondent No.3. Subsequently, in the year 2024, when the petitioner participated in the tender process of District Dhmtari, then vide Annexure P-2, he was informed that he has been blacklisted by the same order i.e. 24.02.2022, but in the earlier communication (page 26) made to the petitioner, the fact of blacklisting of petitioner has not been mentioned. He would further submit that if the impugned order would have been informed the petitioner well within time he would have challenged the same earlier itself, as the same is for indefinite period and not in accordance with the terms of tender condition. (b) Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is not pressing the relief sought against forfeiture of earnest money of Rs.1.00 lacs, at this stage, however, he would submit that the blacklisting order has been passed without mentioning the period and hence the same is contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, while supporting the impugned order passed by the authorities, by referring the additional 4 WPC No.5695 of 2024 affidavit filed on 20-1-2025 would submit that on the basis of violation of tender conditions by the petitioner, after obtaining due approval from the competent authority, the earnest money was confiscated and his name was blacklisted to prevent him from participating in future tender process. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Perusal of Annexure P-2 and page No. 26, which is a communication made to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 would show that some irregularity has been committed by respondent No. 3 in respect of blacklisting of petitioner, as one document content such fact, but other document does not contain the same. On close scrutiny of the order dated 24-2-2022 (Annexure–P/2); page 26; and the notesheet (Annexure-P/8), it is manifest that there is no specific mention about the period of blacklisting and these documents simply stated that the petitioner is blacklisted without mentioning the period. 7. It is noteworthy to mention here that in respect of the matter of another contractor the period of blacklisting has been specifically mentioned as one year, as is apparent from Annexure – P/6, but the same has not been mentioned in the case of the petitioner for the reasons best known to the authorities. 8. It is the well settled proposition of law that ‘debarment’ is recognised and often used as an effective method for disciplining deviant suppliers/contractors who may have committed acts of omission and commission or frauds including misrepresentations, falsification of records and other breaches of the regulations under which such contracts were 5 WPC No.5695 of 2024 allotted. What is notable is that the ‘debarment’ is never permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon the nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor. (See: Kulja Industries Limited v Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others1). 9. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the impugned order dated 24-2-2022 (Annexure–P/2) as also the decision dated 15-2-2022 (Annexure–P/8), only in respect of blacklisting, are set aside. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order, in respect of blacklisting of the petitioner specifying the particular period, in accordance with law and on its own merits, if so advised. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri 1 (2014) 14 SCC 731 K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.01.23 17:25:50 +0530