1 2026:CGHC:5927-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1560 of 2025 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 OfÏcer (E And M) South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Gevra Area, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Staff OfÏcer, Gevra Area, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/02/2026 1. Heard Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Panakj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P/1), 2 issued by the respondent No. 3, by which the petitioner has been debarred for a period of one year from participating in future tenders of the respondents-South Eastern Coalfield Limited (for short, the SECL). 3. The facts, as projected by the petitioner is that the petitioner firm is a service provider who provides transportation-based services along with man power on contract or agreement basis. The petitioner is working with respondent SECL since 2004 and is having experience of more than 20 years. The respondent-SECL through its Material Management Department has floated a bid through GeM portal on dated 12.03.2024 for custom bid for services, hiring of 2 nos. 22-24 seats capacity shift bus for 24 hours on rental basis with 3 drivers for 36 months or 1095 days for movement of workers and employees of Gerva mines. 4. According to the petitioner, he fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the bid document therefore he participated in the said bid and ultimately the award of contract was issued in favor of the petitioner on 22.06.2024. Vide letter dated 22.06.2024, letter reference no. SECL/GA/SO(E&M)24- 25/550 issued by Staff ofÏcer, Gevra Area, SECL, the petitioner was directed to deposit performance security of Rs.4,42,224/- within 21 days from the issuance of GeM contract i.e. on or before 13.07.2024. Again on dated 04.07.2024 through a reminder letter, the petitioner was directed to deposit performance security within 21 days from the issuance of GeM contract i.e. on or before 13.07.2024. 5. Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner vide letter dated 08.07.2024 informed the respondent authority that due to his bad medical conditions it was impossible for him to execute the contract and it has also been informed that he has also suffered paralysis attack on dated 20.06.2024 due to which the doctor has suggested the petitioner to take a rest till his complete recovery and 3 further it was prayed by the petitioner to the respondent authority to cancel the award of contract. However, without considering the letter of petitioner the respondent authority on dated 09.07.2024 again sent a reminder letter to the petitioner to deposit performance security amount before 13.07.2024. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on dated 27.08.2024 by the General Manager/Staff OfÏcer (E&M) SECL Gevra Area whereby the petitioner has been requested to explain his stand within 21 days from the date of issuance of show cause notice as to why penal action of debarring the petitioner firm for 2 years should not be taken. The Staff ofÏcer (E&M) SECL Gevra Area on 23.12.2024 has passed an impugned order whereby it has been stated that while considering the letter dated 08.07.2024 made by the petitioner and after scrutinizing medical prescription provided by the petitioner the respondent authority has reached to a conclusion that as per the medical prescriptions the Doctor has neither explicitly written to take rest and nor has been refrained from going outside from work and further the said act of the petitioner violates Clause No. 4 of the General terms and Conditions and Annexure-I of General Terms and Conditions (Guidelines for Banning of Business) and therefore the petitioner firm has been debarred from participating in future tenders of the SECL for a period of two years. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Staff OfÏcer, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Chairman cum Managing Director, South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Bilaspur on dated 30.12.2024 but no action has been taken by the respondent authority therefore again the petitioner on dated 08.01.2025 made an appeal before the Chairman cum Managing Director, SECL Bilaspur but till date no reply/notice or any action has been taken by the said authority. Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2024 the petitioner has preferred a Writ Petition before this 4 Hon'ble High Court which was registered as WPC No. 333 of 2025. This Hon'ble Court, after appreciating the argument and documents presented in WPC No. 333/2025 has passed an order dated 17.01.2025, whereby the Hon'ble High Court directed the respondent authority to issue fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and subsequently has directed the petitioner to file a detailed reply. 6. Mr. Tiwari further submits that in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble High Court the Staff OfÏcer, Gevra Area, SECL issued a memo dated 12.02.2025 and has withdrawn the order dated 23.12.2024 with immediate effect. Thereafter, the Staff OfÏcer (E&M) Gevra Area, SECL issued a fresh show cause notice on dated 13.02.2025. The petitioner, on dated 19.02.2025 filed his detailed reply and has stated that the petitioner was a chronic hypertension patient suffering for the last 10 years and was taking routine pills of blood pressure, but on 21.06.2024 the health condition of the petitioner was critical due to which he has been transferred from Ozone Neuro Centre to Appollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Dr. Pradeep Tripathi, MD Neuro of Ozone Neuro Centre has clearly mentioned in his prescription dated 21.06.2024 (Annexed along with letter dated 08.07.2024) that the petitioner needed total rest till recovery and has suggested physiotherapy for fast recovery. The Respondent Staff OfÏcer (E&M) Gevra Area, SECL, without considering the reply of the petitioner has passed an impugned order dated 11.03.2025 whereby the Petitioner firm was blacklisted for a period of one year. The said order was passed without properly scrutinising the grounds and medical prescription raised by petitioner vide letter dated 08.07.2024. The respondent authority failed to properly consider the medical documents provided by the petitioner, demonstrating his inability to execute the contract due to severe health conditions. The respondent's conclusion 5 that the medical prescriptions do not explicitly mandate rest or restrict work is perverse and contrary to the facts. The debarment of the petitioner for one year is grossly excessive and disproportionate to the alleged non-compliance. The impugned order dated 11.03.2025 suffers from a blatant disregard of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem. Despite the High Court's directive in its order dated 17.01.2025 to issue a fresh show cause notice and consider the Petitioner's detailed reply, the respondent authority mechanically reiterated its earlier stance without meaningful engagement with the petitioner's submissions. The respondent's decision to blacklist the petitioner for one year is manifestly arbitrary and disproportionate. The petitioner, a long-standing contractor with SECL since 2004, faced unforeseen medical emergency-a paralysis attack an on 20.06.2024-that rendered performance impossible. The Respondent's insistence penalizing the petitioner under Clause 4 of the General Terms and Conditions, despite the medical exigency, ignores the doctrine of force majeure and the principle of proportionality. Blacklisting, a "civil death" penalty, cannot be imposed without balancing the gravity of the default against the contractor's legitimate constraints. The reduction of the debarment period from two years to one does not cure the inherent disproportionality, as the petitioner's medical condition was a valid, unavoidable cause for non-performance. 7. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/SECL submits that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the well-reasoned and legally sustainable order dated 11.03.2025, issued by the Staff OfÏcer (E&M), Gevra Area, SECL whereby, in view of the Petitioner's conduct, the firm has been blacklisted and declared ineligible to participate in any future tenders of SECL- 6 whether in its individual capacity or as a constituent of any partnership firm or joint venture (JV)-for a period of one (1) year from the date of issuance of the said order. The NIT was issued for the engagement of buses along with drivers for transportation of employees through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal. Pursuant to the tender process, the petitioner emerged as the L1 bidder under GeM Contract No. GEMC-511687727432846 dated 22.06.2024. Upon being declared the lowest bidder, the petitioner was duly called upon to deposit the performance security amounting to ₹4,42,224/- (i.e., 5% of the contract value) within a period of 21 days from the date of issuance of the GeM contract, i.e., on or before 13.07.2024, in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the Clause/ Point 11 of the Instructions To Bidder which has already been filed by the petitioner himself. The said clause 11 of the instructions to bidder specifically provides that if any bidder defaults the payment of the earnest money the said bidder will be disqulified from entering into new tender for two Years. Therefore again the reminder letter was sent on 04.07.2024 reminding the petitioner to deposit the performance security amount through Email. The petitioner expressed his inability to execute the contract due to a paralysis attack on 20.06.2024. He further mentioned that it would take about year for him to become completely healthy and resume work. The firm enclosed copies of medical documents in support of his claim and requested cancellation of the contract. After sending the letter, again a reminder was sent to the petitioner firm asking them to deposit the mandatory prescribed performance security amount on 09/07/2024 but no response was ever sent by the petitioner. The tender committee has thereafter revived the documents and it was concluded that the that the doctors have not completely restricted the moment of the petitioner and in such 7 circumstances it cannot be said that the petitioner was completely unable to undertake the work. While seeking to take refuge under the guise of his alleged medical condition, has, in fact, successfully secured another tendered work in the SECL Kusmunda Area vide Work Order bearing GEMC No. 511687734997078 dated 25.07.2024, and is presently engaged in the execution of the said work. This clearly demonstrates the petitioner's capacity to participate in contractual obligations during the period in question, thereby undermining the veracity of the grounds urged by him. The action was taken against the petitioner, and the petitioner's firm was debarred from participating in further proceedings for a period of two years. The said decision was challenged and assailed on the ground that the petitioner was unable to present his case due to suffering from a medical illness. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was registered as WPC No. 333 of 2025. The said petition was decided vide order dated 17.01.2025, whereby this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct the SECL to reissue a show cause notice and reconsider the petitioner's case afresh in accordance with law. In furtherance of the liberty granted by the Hon'ble High Court, a fresh show cause notice was issued to the erring service provider on 13.02.2025, vide Letter No. SECL/GA/SO(E&M)/24-25/2136 dated 13.02.2025. The said notice was addressed to M/s. Dilip Kumar Dinkar, Kusmunda, and was duly forwarded to the firm via e-mail on the same date. In adherence to the principles of natural justice, the notice also extended an opportunity of personal hearing at the ofÏce of the Staff OfÏcer (E&M), Gevra Area, affording the service provider ten days from the date of issuance to submit their explanation as to why the firm should not be debarred or banned from participating in future bids/tenders of SECL, either in its individual capacity or as a constituent of any partnership firm or joint 8 venture, for a minimum period of one year. In response to the show cause notice, the firm vide Letter No:DKD/KSM/25/HV/Ltrs/41 dated 19.02.2025 has submitted his reply with explanation enclosing medical prescription of Dr. Pradeep Tripathi undergoing medical treatment at Ozone Neuro Centre, Niharika, Korba of dated 21.06.2024, 22.06.2024, 24.06.2024. The firm has also submitted copy of MNV test report conducted on 21.06.2024, NCV & EMG report of dated 24.06.2024 and MRI Brain(screening only) of dated 24.06.2024. The firm has also submitted medicine purchase slip and cash receipt of undergoing treatment at Ozone Neuro Centre, Niharika, Korba of dated 21.06.2024, 22.06.2024 and 25.06.2024, further he has also submitted copy of bill payment slip of Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Limited, Bilaspur for medical treatment undergone on dated 24.06.2024 & 28.06.2024. After receipt of the reply from M/s. Dilip Kumar Dinkar, Kusmunda on show cause notice, an opinion of CMO, N.C. Hospital, Gevra Area was sought on the medical condition of Shri. Dilip Kumar Dinkar. The opinion of CMO, N.C. Hospital states that the petitioner was absolutely fit for all job except any changes in face due to Axonal facial nerve palay. 8. Mr. Agrawal further submits that the petitioner has submitted two documents pertaining to his medical unfitness; however, both documents contain certain discrepancies, which cast doubt on their genuineness. The Tender Committee perused all the related documents of file and reply of Shri Dilip Kumar Dinkar received vide letter No. DKD/KSM/25/HV/Ltrs/41 dated 19.02.2025 along with attached documents and deliberated upon various points and ultimately, he was debarred from participating in future tender for a period of one year. 9. Mr. Tiwari, relying on the rejoinder filed, opposes the submissions advanced by Mr. Agrawal and basically reiterates what has been stated 9 in the petition. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 11. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P/1) of debarment issued by the respondent-SECL is for a limited period of one year and the said period is going to expire very shortly on 10.03.2026 and only about one month is left for completion of the debarment period. In view of the same, adjudication on merits at this stage would be largely academic in nature. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the legality or validity of the impugned order dated 11.03.2025, and without examining the rival contentions on merits, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the debarment imposed vide order dated 11.03.2025 shall not come in the way of the petitioner participating in future tenders floated by the respondent–SECL and after expiry of the said debarment period, and the petitioner shall be at liberty to participate in future tenders floated by the respondent-SECL in accordance with law and the applicable tender conditions. It is further clarified that the respondent–SECL shall consider any future bid/tender submitted by the petitioner independently and on its own merits, without being influenced by the impugned order of debarment. 12. With the aforesaid observation and clarification, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Manpreet / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.02.04 20:29:31 +0530