Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19148-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 2072 of 2025 M/s Uday Singh and Brothers through its proprietor Uday Singh, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Bhagwan Singh, having Office at Purana Chief House, P.O- Giddi A & P.S-Giddi, District- Hazaribagh. ... Petitioner Versus 1. C.C.L. through its CMD, Having its office at Darbhanga House, P.O-G.P.O, P.S- Kotwali& District- Ranchi. 2. G.M. (E&M) Department, C.C.L., Darbhanga House, P.O- G.P.O, P.S-Kotwali& District- Ranchi. 3. General Manager, N.K Area, CCL, P.O-Dakra & P.S-Khelari, District-Ranchi. 4. Staff Officer (E&M), N.K. Area, CCL, P.O- Dakra & P.S- Khelari, District - Ranchi. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr Sidhartha Roy, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr Anoop Kuma Mehta, Advocate Mr Shubham Malviya, Advocate --------- 04/Dated: 01.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition challenges the “order for banning of business” dated 22.10.2024 by which the petitioner is banned for one year from being eligible to submit a bid in CCL as a whole with immediate effect. 3. By order dated 08.05.2025, a Coordinate Bench suspended the impugned order dated 22.10.2024 till further orders. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19148-DB 4. This Court’s order dated 08.05.2025 is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: “1. Issue notice to the respondents. 2. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. Prima-facie the impugned order banning the petitioner from doing business/black listing the petitioner for the period of one year from 22.10.2024 is not preceded by any show cause notice, in spite of the law having been declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70, Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1989) 1 SCC 229 and Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105. Therefore, there shall be interim suspension of Annexure- 8 dated 22.10.2024 till further orders.” 5. The record shows that before the impugned order was made, there was no show-cause notice issued to the petitioner. Besides, we note that the banning term, which was to be of one year, has also by now expired. 6. Accordingly, there is no question of the impugned banning order dated 22.10.2024 being effective any longer. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner expresses apprehension that the impugned order may be used to debar or prohibit the petitioner from carrying out business with CCL in future. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:19148-DB 8. According to us, such apprehension is needless because the term of the impugned order has already expired. Besides, the order was also suspended by this Court in the interim. The order does not say that the same will operate beyond the period of one year or that it would act indefinitely. 9. With the above clarification and now that the term referred to in the impugned order has already expired, we dispose of this petition. No costs. 10. Pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 01, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 02.07.2026