1 2025:CGHC:638-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 856 of 2024 Sps Construction And Engineering Works Through Its Partner Manoj Soni S/o Lt. Shri Swendar Prasad Soni, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Kirpal Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Executive Director (Mm), Bhilai, District- Durg. 2 - G.M., (O And M), Sbc, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District-Durg. 3 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, Delhi. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate and Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 06/01/2025 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPC No. 3221/2024, the petitioner has filed the instant writ appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the writ petition that the petitioner was participated in the tender floated by the Bhilai Steel Plant for construction of civil work of backwash filter overhead tank of WTP-3(URM) and make-up water overhead tank for DCW circuit of BRM. Being the successful bidder, the work was allotted to the petitioner and the contract agreement was executed between the parties on 09.09.2016 and work order was issued on 03.11.2016. After having successfully completed the work, the work completion certificate was issued by the respondents acknowledging the satisfactory completion of the work. After about 5 years of the completion of the awarded work to the petitioner, on 02.08.2023, all of sudden, the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and blacklisted him for the period of 6 months on the grounds of the allegation of certain misconduct, which was under examination by the Standing Banning Committee of the respondents. *******On 06.09.2023, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner stating as to why the petitioner should not be blacklisted on the grounds that during the execution of the allotted work, he has taken material inside the protected area of Bhilai Steel Plant using forged Form 157 dated 24.05.2018 by adding some items and used the same 3 for raising RA bills and committing forgery of document. The allegation was denied by the petitioner and submitted that after due verification of Form 157 by the authorities and CISF, they were taken inside. The physical verification was also done before passing RA bills. As per cause 38 of the Special Conditions of the Contract, the payment under contract is based on material actually used during execution and not on the basis of material brought inside the protected area. There is no financial loss to the respondents on account of any act of the petitioner and he filed his detailed reply on 11.09.2023. Thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing, the order of blacklisting has been passed against the petitioner on 02.01.2024 that too by a non-speaking and un-reasoned order. Before passing the said order dated 02.01.2024, no inquiry was conducted. Further, on the basis of said order of blacklisting, passed by respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 1 issued show cause notice stating therein that earlier also he has been banned by SAIL-BSP for the period of 3 years with effect from 25.07.2014 and after completion of ban period on 03.01.2016, the work was allotted. Since it was found by SAIL-BSP that with respect to the present work order, he indulged in fraudulent practice of misrepresentation of facts by forgery of documents and by SAIL-BSP vide banning order dated 02.01.2024, it is apparent that the petitioner has involved in fraudulent practice second time. Therefore, why the business dealings with the petitioner should not be banned across all the plants and units of SAIL vide its show cause notice dated 09.02.2024. The petitioner has also submitted his response on 17.02.2024 to the show cause notice issued to him, but without granting him any opportunity of hearing, the 4 order of blacklisting dated 23.02.2024 has been passed by the respondent authorities and blacklisted the petitioner. 3. Against the said orders of blacklisting dated 02.01.2024 and 23.02.2024, the petitioner filed his appeal before the appellate committee. The said appeal was also dismissed on 23.02.2024 in a cryptic manner that too by a non-speaking order. Therefore, the said order dated 23.02.2024 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and considering the material placed in the writ petition by the respective parties, partly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the period of ban imposed by the respondents, vide order dated 02.01.2024 and 23.02.2024 has been reduced from 3 years to 2 years and the other part of the order has been affirmed. Therefore, the order passed by learned Single Judge has been challenged in the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the blacklisting order has been passed after lapse of more than 5 years that too after closure of the contract, which is barred by limitation as per clause 6.3 of the sales guideline on Banning of Business 2022, which clearly provides that blacklisting cannot be done beyond the period of 3 years. In the present case, the work was completed in the year 2019, but the blacklisting has been done in the year 2024. Therefore, the blacklisting order is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that before passing the order of blacklisting, no opportunity of hearing was provided. He would further submit that the learned Single Judge ought 5 to have included the period of suspension of 6 months (temporary blacklisting in the total period of blacklisting). The period of blacklisting should have been counted from the period of suspension of business dealing i.e. from 02.08.2023. He would also submit that there was no existing contract between the parties on the date of initiation of the blacklisting proceedings and the work allotted to the petitioner was already completed and after its verification, the RA bills were paid, yet the blacklisting order has been passed, which does affect the future prospect of the petitioner and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the proceeding was initiated by the respondents on a complaint received by the vigilance department and upon investigation, the allegation was found true and thereafter the authorities of the committee taken up a decision for banning of the business with the petitioner in terms of clause 1.4 of the procedure dated 24.11.2014. A show cause notice was also issued and opportunity was granted to the petitioner to defend the allegations in compliance of the principles of natural justice. After considering that there was forgery in the Form 157, the impugned order was passed. The learned Single Judge is quite lenient in reducing the ban period from 3 years to 2 years after considering the entire facts and circumstances, as also in view of the nature of the allegation, which does not call for any interference and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition as well as writ appeal. 8. The learned Single Judge has considered the letter dated 02.08.2023 and show cause notice dated 06.09.2023, in which the work description specifying the fraud/misconduct committed by the petitioner, in which it has been specifically mentioned the materials, which was taken inside the BSP. The said show cause notice is very specific and clear, in which the details of allegations and action proposed is also mentioned. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the show cause notice and represented by his authorized representative and he was being heard and thereafter the impugned order of banning was passed. Therefore, it cannot be said that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has also considered that clause 2.1 of the guidelines issued by the SAIL-BSP, which are applicable to sale and procurement of goods and services including contracts/projects across all the plants, units, subsidiaries of sale. Clause 4 of the guidelines provides for initiation of banning/suspension. 9. The learned Single Judge had also considered that on a complaint received, the vigilance department investigated and submitted its report, found the petitioner guilty that he had forged or tempered the documents during the execution of work under the contract. He would also consider the clause 7.9 of the guidelines, which provides for period of banning and after considering that the maximum period of banning provided under the guidelines is of 2 years in case of 7 fraud/forgery/fraudulent practices or tempering of the documents by the agency, as given in Para 6.6 of the guidelines and has reduced the period of ban from 3 years to 2 years, which in the opinion of this Court does not suffers with any perversity or infirmity. 10. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. 11. We do not find any sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and the present writ appeal liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved