1 CGHC010323002026 2026:CGHC:37019-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4320 of 2026 M/s Himanshu Brothers Through Its Proprietor Himanshu Khandelwal Aged About 47 Years, S/o Nandkishore Khandelwal R/o H- 9 S T 1, Pragati Nagar, Risali, Bhilai District- Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road New Delhi 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Director In Charge Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) 3 - General Manager, Water Management Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) 4 - Deputy General Manager, Contract Cell (Works) And Budgeting Department, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Ishaan Saluja, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/08/2026 ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.08.21 10:53:07 +0530 2 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ishaan Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance copy. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following relief(s): “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned short-closure order dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P/1), issued by the Respondent General Manager, Water Management Department, SAIL/Bhilai Steel Plant. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to not debar the petitioner firm from participating in future tender based on the findings recorded in impugned order dated 10.08.2026. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass such further orders or directions as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case” 3. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the impugned short-closure order dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) shall not be pressed by the respondents. It is further submitted that, in terms of Clause 17.5.1 of the General Conditions of Contract, 30 days' notice is required to be issued before taking action for short closure. He fairly submits that such mandatory 30 days' notice was not issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 3 4. In view of the aforesaid submission, the impugned short-closure order dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) cannot be sustained in its present form, particularly when the respondents themselves admit that the mandatory requirement of 30 days' notice, as contemplated under Clause 17.5.1 of the General Conditions of Contract, was not complied with. 5. Accordingly, the impugned short-closure order dated 10.08.2026 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and in accordance with law, if so advised, after affording the petitioner the requisite 30 days' notice and an opportunity to submit its response, as contemplated under Clause 17.5.1 of the General Conditions of Contract. 6. Needless to observe, any such fresh decision taken by the respondents shall be made strictly in accordance with the contractual terms and applicable law and shall be uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 10.08.2026. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. All other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok