1 CGHC010046542023 2026:CGHC:32529-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 69 of 2023 M/s Sharda Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Rahul Uppal S/o Anup Uppal Aged About 43 Years, Director At Sharda Offset Printers Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office At Sejbahar Road, Village Dunda, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation Through Its Managing Director- Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, Premises Of C.G. Board Of Secondary Education, Pensionbada Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - General Manager, Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, Premises Of C.G. Board Of Secondary Education, Pensionbada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr.Manoj Paranjape, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Arjit Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29.07.2026 1. Heard Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned Senior Advocate assisted by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.30 18:33:20 +0530 2 Mr.Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.5883/2022 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the appellant, Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1973 and functions in accordance with its own bylaws and rules. The primary object of the Corporation is to print, publish and distribute textbooks and educational materials to government schools, colleges and various educational agencies of the State, including School Education Department, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Samagra Shiksha Mission and State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT). 4. The respondent Corporation issued E-tender No. P-3/2020-21 for printing, binding and distribution of textbooks (without paper) for the academic year 2020-21. The appellant, after being declared successful in the tender process, entered into an agreement dated 26.12.2019 with the Corporation for printing and distribution of free textbooks through offset printing process. Pursuant thereto, work orders were issued on 08.01.2020, 14.01.2020, 17.01.2020 and 18.02.2020. The appellant received paper from the Corporation 3 and commenced printing work, thereafter supplying the completed books within the stipulated period. 5. As per the terms of the tender, the appellant submitted bank guarantees towards security. A dispute subsequently arose regarding the quantum and validity of the bank guarantees submitted by the appellant. The appellant clarified that two bank guarantees of ₹20,00,000/- and ₹50,00,000/- amounting to a total of ₹70,00,000/- had been submitted and explained the renewal/amendment of the ₹20,00,000/- bank guarantee issued by Axis Bank. Despite the clarification, the respondent Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 25.02.2020 alleging that the appellant had lifted paper worth ₹90,00,000/- despite furnishing bank guarantees only to the extent of ₹40,00,000/-, and called upon the appellant to explain as to why action for blacklisting should not be initiated. The appellant denied the allegations and sought relevant documents under the Right to Information Act to enable him to submit a detailed reply. Upon receiving the documents, the appellant specifically disputed the alleged letter dated 23.01.2020, which purportedly contained an admission regarding submission of a bank guarantee of ₹40,00,000/-. The appellant contended that the said letter was neither issued nor signed by him. 6. It is the case of the appellant that the said issue arose due to an internal lapse on the part of an employee of the respondent 4 Corporation, namely Data Entry Operator Chinta Ram Sahu, against whom departmental proceedings were initiated. The appellant also relied upon his long-standing association with the Corporation since 2005 and the work satisfaction certificates issued by the Corporation for various academic years. Subsequently, the respondent Corporation passed a blacklisting order dated 02.01.2021 against the appellant company. The said order was challenged before this Court in WPC No.1297/2021, wherein vide order dated 08.09.2021, blacklisting order was quashed. The appellant thereafter repeatedly requested release of his earnest money deposit/security deposit, and the bank guarantee was ultimately returned by the Corporation on 06.12.2021. However, thereafter, the respondent Corporation issued another show cause notice dated 14.12.2022 on the same set of allegations relating to the bank guarantees and alleged irregularities. The appellant challenged the said notice before the Hon’ble High Court contending that the earlier blacklisting proceedings had already been adjudicated and quashed, and in the absence of any liberty granted by the Court, the respondent could not initiate fresh proceedings on the same allegations. The appellant further contended that the subsequent show cause notice amounted to reopening a concluded issue and was arbitrary and illegal. 7. It is the case of the respondent Corporation that the subsequent show cause notice was maintainable as the earlier proceedings 5 were quashed on technical grounds and that the Corporation was entitled to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities. The dispute therefore relates to the legality and sustainability of the subsequent show cause notice dated 14.12.2022 issued against the appellant for initiating fresh blacklisting proceedings on the basis of the same allegations. Against which, the appellant filed writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Manoj Paranjape, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that the impugned order and the show cause notice are arbitrary, illegal and violative of the appellant's constitutional right to carry on trade and business. It is further submitted that the respondents are estopped from initiating the impugned proceedings, as the issues sought to be reopened have already been adjudicated in the earlier round of litigation. It is submitted that the impugned show cause notice has been issued with a predetermined and prejudiced mind, rendering the opportunity of hearing an empty formality. The notice has been issued only to harass the appellant and as a retaliatory measure for the appellant's repeated requests seeking release of the EMD/Security Deposit. It is further submitted that the agreement was valid only for a period of one year and had already expired before the issuance of the impugned show cause notice. Consequently, the respondents had no authority to invoke the contractual provisions after the expiry of the agreement. 6 9. It is also submitted that the allegations contained in the impugned show cause notice are substantially identical to those raised in the earlier proceedings, pursuant to which the order of blacklisting had already been set aside by this Hon'ble Court. In the absence of any liberty reserved in favour of the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings on the same allegations, the issuance of a second show cause notice is wholly impermissible. It is lastly submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the present proceedings are founded on the very same allegations which had already been adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court and, therefore, erred in holding that the respondents were entitled to conduct a fresh enquiry. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation and another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 343. 10.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, opposing the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge, after considering all the aspects of the matter, had rightly dismissed the writ petition and that the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court. 11.We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Techno Prints 7 (supra) held as under:- “36. In the overall view of the matter more particularly in the peculiar facts of the case, we have reached the conclusion that asking the appellant herein to file his reply to the show cause notice and then await the final order which may perhaps go against him, leaving him with no option but to challenge the same before the jurisdictional High Court will be nothing but an empty formality. Even otherwise, issuing of show cause notice if not always then at least most of the times is just an empty formality because at the very point of time the show cause notice is issued the Authority has made up its mind to ultimately pass the final order blacklisting the Contractor. In other words, the show cause notice in most of the cases is issued with a pre-determined mind. It has got to be issued because this Court has said that without giving an opportunity of hearing there cannot be any order of blacklisting. To meet with this just a formality is completed by the Authority of issuing a show cause notice. 37. We clarify that it shall be open for the respondent Corporation to forfeit the EMD of Rs. 5,00,000/-. However, the show cause notice calling upon the appellant as to why it should not be blacklisted is quashed and set aside.” 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned show cause notice dated 14.12.2022, insofar as it relates to the initiation of blacklisting proceedings against the appellant, cannot be sustained in law. 8 14. It is not in dispute that the allegations forming the basis of the impugned show cause notice are substantially the same as those which had been made the subject matter of the earlier round of litigation, wherein the order of blacklisting had already been set aside by this Court. No liberty was reserved in favour of the respondent Corporation to initiate fresh blacklisting proceedings on the very same allegations. In such circumstances, the issuance of a fresh show cause notice seeking to reopen the same issues is wholly impermissible. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Techno Prints (supra) has held that where the authority has already made up its mind to blacklist a contractor, the issuance of a show cause notice becomes an empty formality, and in such exceptional circumstances the writ court would be justified in quashing the show cause notice itself rather than relegating the affected party to submit a reply and await the final order. The Supreme Court further quashed the show cause notice insofar as it pertained to the proposed blacklisting while leaving it open to the Corporation to take such other action as was otherwise permissible in law. 16. In the present case also, the circumstances unmistakably indicate that the impugned proceedings have been initiated on allegations which already stood adjudicated in the earlier proceedings. Permitting the respondent Corporation to proceed with the impugned show cause notice would amount to allowing it to reopen 9 issues which had already attained finality. Consequently, relegating the appellant to submit a reply to such notice would serve no meaningful purpose and would be nothing more than an empty formality. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Techno Prints (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was not justified in declining to interfere with the impugned show cause notice. 18. Accordingly, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.5883/2022 is set aside. Consequently, the show cause notice dated 14.12.2022 issued by the respondent Corporation is quashed and set aside insofar as it relates to the initiation of blacklisting proceedings against the appellant. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondent Corporation from taking such action as may otherwise be permissible in law, in respect of matters not covered by the present adjudication. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu