1 CGHC010259232026 2026:CGHC:28372-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3542 of 2026 1 - Avsar Charitable Trust A (Registered Charitable Trust) Having Its Registered Office At D-1/500c First Floor Sangam Vihar New Delhi- 110002, Through Its Authorised Representative Mr. Deepak Goyal S/o Ashok Goyal Deepak Goyal S/o Ashok Goyal Aged 30 Years Resident Of D-1/500c, First Floor Sangam Vihar New Delhi 110002. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (Cgmsel) (An Undertaking Of Government Of Chhattisgarh) Through Its Authorised Representative Having Office At- Chhattisgarh Housing Board Business Complex Fourth Floor South East Corner Sector -27 New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College Raipur Through Its Dean Having Office At Jail Rd. Opp. Central Jail Moudhapara Raipur Chhattisgarh- 492001 3 - Power Finance Corporation Limited (A Government Of India Undertaking Through Its Chief General Manager (C S R) Having Registered Office- At- Urjanidhi 1 Barakhamba Lanc Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Trivikram Nayak, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.07.10 10:49:10 +0530 2 09.07.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2 The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs: “a) Stay the operation, implementation and effect of the impugned termination/cancellation order dated 30.06.2026 issued by Respondent No. 1 whereby GeM Contract No. GEMC- 511687769329634 has been cancelled; b) Restrain the Respondents from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner pursuant to the impugned termination order dated 30.06.2026 during the pendency of the present writ petition; c) Release the withheld amount of Rs. 2,79,45,000/- to the Petitioner for the equipment supplied to Respondent No. 2; and/or d) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3 Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was awarded GeM Contract No.GEMC-511687769329634 on 17.03.2026 by the Respondent No.1 for supply & installation of OT Tables and OT Lights at Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur pursuant to a tender floated through GeM portal. The project was funded by Respondent No.3 under a Memorandum of Agreement dated 15.10.2025 executed with Respondent No.2, requiring compliance with the applicable government norms and procurement procedures. During execution of the contract, Respondent No.1 issued a communication dated 27.05.2026 alleging mismatch in the technical specifications of the supplied equipment and called upon the petitioner to furnish an explanation. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply denying the allegations and asserting that the equipment supplied are strictly as per the tender specifications. A review conducted by Respondent No.3 also found the equipment to be in compliance with the prescribed technical 3 specifications and recorded that the same was being regularly used by Respondent No.2, however, the Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 terminating the contract of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the termination order dated 30.06.2026. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that tender was floated through GeM portal after following the prescribed procurement process and the petitioner was awarded the contract after being found technically and financially eligible. Although the Respondent No.1 issued a communication dated 27.05.2026 alleging mismatch in the technical specifications of the supplied equipment and calling upon the petitioner to explain the same, the petitioner furnished a detailed reply stating that the equipments are as per technical specifications. Subsequent review conducted by the Respondent No. 3 also confirmed that the supplied equipment complied with the technical specifications, despite aforesaid facts, the Respondent No.1 proceeded to terminate the contract without issuing any show cause notice proposing termination or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order, therefore, came to be passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. It was also submitted that before passing an order entailing civil consequences, a specific show cause notice indicating the proposed action is mandatory. Since no such notice was issued in the present case, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4 5 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 does not dispute that for termination of the contract, there is lack of proper notice in accordance with tender condition, however, the contract was terminated on account of deficiencies noticed in the equipment supplied by the petitioner. Thus, no interference is called for. 6 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned order of termination dated 30.06.2026 cannot be sustained. Although a notice dated 27.05.2026 was issued to the petitioner regarding alleged mismatch in technical specifications, however, the said notice merely sought an explanation in respect of alleged deficiencies and directed removal of the equipment. It did not propose termination of the contract nor did it put the petitioner to notice that such harsh action was contemplated. 7 The record further indicates that the petitioner submitted a detailed reply disputing the allegations. Further, as per review report of Respondent No.3 itself, the equipment supplied by the petitioner were found to be as per requisite specifications. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent proceeded to terminate the contract without issuing any specific show cause notice proposing termination or granting the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing. It is well settled law that where an order entails adverse civil consequences, notice must specifically indicate the action proposed so as to enable the affected party to effectively defend itself. Admittedly, no such notice was issued in the present case before terminating contract issued in favour of 5 petitioner as per clause-16 of the said contract/agreement. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 30.06.2026 has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and is arbitrary and unsustainable. 8 The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. The impugned order dated 30.06.2026 terminating GeM Contract No.GEMC- 511687769329634 is hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder