1 2026:CGHC:22190-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2361 of 2026 1 - M/s Khalatkar Construction Infra Private Limited Through its Authorised Representative Amit Ransingh Registered Class -A Contractor, PWD, Registration No.CGer23287, GSTIN:22AAICK1658DIZU, Head Office R-25 Reshmibagh, Umred Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 – Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Appeal Committee Constituted Under Clause 7.3 of The Unified Registration System -E-Registration, Through its Chairman /Chairperson and Member Secretary, Office of The Public Works Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Parajpe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.05.19 11:15:21 +0530 2 For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 12-05-2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 (Annexure P/1), whereby the Petitioner has been downgraded from Class "A" contractor to Class "B" contractor for a period of one year, being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to restore the registration status of the Petitioner as a Class "A" contractor forthwith, along with all consequential benefits, including eligibility to participate in all tenders applicable to Class "A" category. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The facts as mentioned in the petition, are that the Petitioner, M/s Khalatkar Construction Infra Private Limited, is a registered Class-A contractor with the Public Works Department (PWD), holding 3 Registration No. CGeR23287, valid from 16.06.2023 to 15.06.2028, and GSTIN: 22AAICK1658DIZU. On 07.05.2025, the Engineer-in-Chief, PWD, issued a show-cause notice against the Petitioner based on a recommendation from the Water Resources Department. The allegation stated that the Petitioner had failed to disclose “work in hand” for certain tenders, specifically Tender System No.147055 (Bhatapara Canal under S/M Heavy Plant & Machinery Division, Raipur) and Tender System No.151715 (Kukurdi Amaldiha Anicut Scheme under Kharang Water Resource Division, Bilaspur). The Department suggested that action be taken under Clause 7.1 of the Guidelines dated 29.10.2014. In response, the Petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 26.05.2025, explaining that as per Annexure-III of Item Rate Tender Form B (Envelope-B), there was no requirement to disclose work in hand outside the State of Chhattisgarh. The Petitioner had provided full disclosure for all in-state works where it acted as the prime contractor, and sublet works to M/s Shring Constructions had been accurately reflected. The Petitioner emphasized that there was no suppression, false affidavit, or misrepresentation, and the notes in the tender form did not require such disclosure. Despite this clarification, the Chief Engineer, PWD, issued an order on 26.11.2025 de-registering the Petitioner for a period of two years under Clauses 7.1, 7.2, and 12.1 of the Guidelines. Notably, the Water Resources Department itself had recommended only a one-year suspension, and the Petitioner viewed the PWD’s decision as arbitrary, disproportionate, and legally unsound. The Petitioner’s contention is that the procedure of de-registration was 4 carried out without proper consideration of its response or the specific nature of the allegations. The Petitioner got knowledge of the order only on 30.12.2025. Moreover, the Petitioner contends that its conduct does not fall under any disqualification provisions in the tender documents (Clause 2.1.6) and that the de-registration is thus without legal basis. It is further pointed out that there is no clear requirements in the tender documents for disclosing sublet works outside Chhattisgarh, making the PWD’s action arbitrary and likely to cause irreparable harm to the Petitioner’s business and reputation. Aggrieved by the order, the Petitioner appealed to the Committee constituted under Clause 7.3 of the Unified Registration System – E-Registration dated 27.01.2014. On 30.03.2026, the Committee partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the two-year de-registration order. The Committee recognized that the omission was a human error and that the Petitioner had no intention to hide or suppress sublet works. Considering the recommendations of the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, and the Petitioner’s explanation, the Committee downgraded the Petitioner’s registration from Class-A to Class-B for a period of one year, effective from 26.11.2025, with reinstatement scheduled after 24.11.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered with the order dated 24.04.2026 passsed by this Court in WPC No.1968 of 2026 and copy of the same has been annexed in the present petition as Annexure-P/9. Therefore, the present petition may be disposed of in the same terms. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondents/State does not dispute the 5 fact that the issue involved in the present petition is completely covered with the order dated 24.04.2026 passed in WPC No.1968 of 2026. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed in the petition. 6. In the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No.1968 of 2026 it has been observed in para 8 to 12 that:- “8. From the record, it is evident that the very foundation of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner rests upon the allegation of non-disclosure of “sublet work in hand” in certain tenders. However, it is not in dispute that at the time when the tenders in question were submitted, the prescribed format i.e. Annexure-III of the Item Rate Tender Form did not contain any column or mandate requiring disclosure of such sublet work. The material on record further demonstrates that the requirement of furnishing details of “sublet work in hand” was introduced for the first time only by way of amendment dated 16.04.2025. Thus, the petitioner cannot be faulted for non-compliance of a condition which was not in existence at the relevant time, and any action based on such subsequent amendment would amount to retrospective application of a condition, which is impermissible in law. 9. It is further significant to note that the appellate authority itself, after considering the reply and material 6 placed by the petitioner, has recorded a categorical finding that the lapse on the part of the petitioner was not intentional and does not reflect any deliberate attempt to suppress or conceal information, but was merely a result of negligence or human error. Once such a finding has been returned by the competent authority, the very basis for imposition of any penalty stands substantially diluted. In absence of any element of mens rea or deliberate misrepresentation, the imposition of penalty, particularly one having serious civil consequences affecting the petitioner’s business, reputation and eligibility to participate in tenders, is wholly unjustified. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from inherent contradiction, inasmuch as it acknowledges absence of intent yet proceeds to punish the petitioner, which clearly reflects non- application of mind. 10. This Court also finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that the punishment imposed is disproportionate and arbitrary. The original authority had directed non-renewal for two years, whereas the recommending department had suggested a lesser penalty, and the appellate authority, while setting aside the earlier order, has imposed a different form of penalty by downgrading the petitioner’s registration 7 from Class “A” to Class “B” for a period of one year, without assigning cogent and convincing reasons. Such exercise of power, without proper justification and in the absence of established misconduct, is arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the proceedings are vitiated on account of procedural irregularity, as the concerned authority failed to appear before the appellate forum on multiple dates, thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair and effective opportunity of hearing. 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 cannot be sustained in law. The categorical observation of the authority itself that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to conceal its earlier work, coupled with the fact that no such clause existed in the tender document at the relevant time and was introduced only by amendment dated 16.04.2025, clearly renders the impugned action arbitrary and unsustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 30.03.2026 is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s registration as a Class “A” contractor forthwith with all consequential benefits. 8 12. No order as to costs.” 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in the present petition is identical to WPC No.1968 of 2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WPC No. 1968 of 2026. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 30.03.2026 is quashed and set aside, and the respondents are directed to restore the petitioner’s registration as a Class “A” contractor forthwith with all consequential benefits. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil