1 2025:CGHC:61792-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6608 of 2025 1 - M/s J.S. Steel Pvt. Ltd Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 1/1 A/1 D Industrial Estate, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattigarh - 490026, Represented Through Its Director Shri Saurabh Jagwani, S/o Lt Dharmendra Jagwani, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Block 27, Plot-11 Nehru Nagar West, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) --- Petitioner versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant (A Unit Of Sail) Through Its Director In- Charge, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rourkela Steel Plant (A Unit Of Sail) Through Its Director In- Charge, Rourkela, District - Sundargarh, Odisha 4 - Gm (Mm) Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District - Sundargarh, Odisha 5 - Agm (Hr) Ir R And Ga And Convener, Standing Committee On Banning Of Business Dealings, Sail- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District - Sundargarh, Odisha 6 - Chief General Manager (Hr) Sail - Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District - Sundargarh, Odisha --- Respondents And WPC No. 6610 of 2025 1 - M/s J.S. Forge Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At 2-B Industrial Estate, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, Represented Through Its Director Shri Saurabh Jagwani, S/o Lt Dharmendra Jagwani Aged About 34 Years, R/o Block 27, Plot- 11 Nehru Nagar West, Bhilai, Durg, (C.G.) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.12.19 16:43:08 +0530 2 ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited, Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant (A Unit Of Sail) Through Its Director In- Charge, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rourkela Steel Plant (A Unit Of Sail) Through Its Director In- Charge, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha. 4 - Gm (Mm) Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha. 5 - Agm (Hr) Ir, R And Ga And Convener, Standing Committee On Banning Of Business Dealings, Sail- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha. 6 - Chief General Manager (Hr), Sail- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha. --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate with Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/BSP: Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19.12.2025 1. By the present writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “(1) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned Banning Order dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P/1 in both the petitions) passed by GM (MM), SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant. (ii) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice..” 3 2. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are a registered supplier at Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP), a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) having ongoing contracts with BSP. The ban has been imposed alleging anti-competitive practice (formation of cartel) to influence the bid while participating in Bid No. GeM/25/2025/Β/6244862 dated 17.05.2025 for procurement of "Wearing Parts of Hammer Crusher (primary) PH-III on OTE basis for RMHP(M). Learned counsel submits that the impugned order of banning dated 03.12.2025 is in complete violation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as the same has been issued with mala fide intention, in a complete arbitrary fashion without adhering to principles of natural justice, contrary to the procedure established by law. Learned counsel submits that the respondents utterly failed to consider the fact that both the companies are separate legal entity and mere becoming a director in another company is not a disqualification and no conflict of interest can be presumed unless established with facts. The respondents also lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has withdrawn from the tendering process and did not participated in the Reverse Auction (RA) to avoid conflict of interest and the submission 4 of bid by both the companies was done inadvertently by the staff of the company when one of the directors was out of India. (b) Learned counsel submits that the banning policy of 2024 of SAIL requires detailed investigation and enquiry before banning an entity, however, no enquiry report has been ever supplied to the petitioners before passing the impugned order of banning, the petitioners are totally unaware of the contents of the inquiry report which forms the basis of conclusion of the authorities for alleging anti- competitive practice against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that that though the petitioners have ready to approach the appellate authority as they have an alternative remedy against the ban by the said impugned order, but they stated that the enquiry report has not been submitted till date, therefore, they are not able to file the appeal before the appellate authority concerned. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal before appellate authority. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 pleadings and documents. 5. The matter relates to banning the petitioners from engaging in any business dealings with all plants and units of SAIL across the country for a period of two years, with effect from 03/12/2025. From bare perusal of the pleadings and documents appended with the petition, the subject matter contains an appeal provision at clause 10 of the guidelines on banning of business dealings (effective from 4.5.2024). For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote clause 10 of the guidelines : “10. Appeal against the Decision of the Competent Authority: 10.1. The Agency may file an appeal against the order of Company-wide banning of business dealings/suspension/Plant/Unit wide Hold on participation of the Agency in tenders. The appeal shall lie to the respective Appellate Authority only. Such an appeal shall be made within 30 days of receipt of the order. 10.2. Appellate Authority would consider the appeal and pass appropriate Speaking Order which shall be communicated by the Concerned Department to the Agency as well as the Competent Authority whose Order has been appealed. 6 10.3. Where a firm is referred for banning to the Ministry of Steel with approval of Chairman or is banned pursuant to a banning order issued by Ministry of Steel/DoE, in such cases there shall be no Appellate Authority in SAIL. 6. On bare perusal of the material available on record, it is manifest that there is appeal provision which categorically provides that the Agency may file an appeal against the order of Company-wide banning of business dealings/suspension/ Plant/Unit wide Hold on participation of the Agency in tenders. The appeal shall lie to the respective Appellate Authority only. Such an appeal shall be made within 30 days of receipt of the order. 7. In view of the Clause 10 of the guidelines, which provides a comprehensive and statutorily recognized dispute resolution, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has an effective, adequate, and efficacious alternative remedy available. 8. 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. 9. 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 7 interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 10. 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. 11. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court finds no ground to entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy available under Clause 10 of the guidelines, if so advised. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep