S/L 14 03.09.2026 Court. No. 25 suvayan WPA 11069 of 2026 Iserve Solutions and Services Private Limited & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Suddhasatva Banerjee Mr. Aman Agarwal Mr. Giridhar Dhelia Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma …for the petitioners. Mrs. Manju Agarwal, Ld. A.G.P. Ms. Sudipa Banerjee …for State. Mr. S. R. Saha Mr. Soumya Kundu …for the respondent no. 2. 1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application challenging the impugned order dated March 5, 2026 wherein the respondent no. 2 has restricted the petitioners from undertaking any activities with Webel Technology Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘WTL’ in short) including participation in tender floated by WTL for a period of one year from the date of issuance of this notice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the WTL has issued a tender notice wherein the petitioners have submitted their quotation. Initially on May 15, 2025, the petitioners have submitted quotation intimating that the validity of the quotation/offer is valid for 10 days. Subsequently, again on June 5, 2025, the petitioners have submitted further quotation informing the WTL that the validity of the quotation/offer will be till June 10, 2025. Till June 10, 2026, no work order is 2 issued to the petitioners. On July 4, 2025 the WTL has issued the work order for supply of the materials. The petitioners have not accepted the work order. On January 9, 2026, the WTL has issued the show-cause notice to the petitioners by directing the petitioners to furnish explanation as to why the petitioners should not be penalized for not supplying the materials in terms of the work order. The petitioners have submitted detailed reply to the said show-cause notice on January 30, 2026. On receipt of the said show-cause reply, the WTL has issued the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the show-cause notice there is no mentioned that the WTL will blacklist the petitioner. The petitioners further submit that the work order has been issued to the petitioners but the work order was not accepted. He further submits that in the quotation/offer letter the petitioners have categorically stated that the quotation/offer will be valid till June 10, 2025 but till June 10, 2026, no work order has been issued. The work order has been issued on July 4, 2025. 4. Per contra, learned advocate appearing for the WTL submits that there was some technical difficulties for issuance of the work order by June 10, 2025. Accordingly, on July 4, 2025 the work order was issued and a mail was also sent to the petitioners on the same day but the petitioners failed to supply the same and accordingly, the show-cause notice was issued. The petitioners have submitted the show-cause reply but the 3 WTL has not satisfied with the reply and the impugned order is passed. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the State submits that though the authorities have passed the order by restraining the petitioners for undertaking any activities with WTL including participated in the tender floated by WTL but no personal hearing was provided and if this Court directed the WTL, WTL will provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties perused the materials on record. 7. After receipt of the tender, the petitioners have submitted the quotation by specifying that the offer is valid up till June 10, 2025. On June 5, 2026 again the petitioners submitted the quotation informing that the validity is till June 10, 2025. The WTL has not issued any work order by June 10, 2025. In between June 10, 2025 till July 4, 2025 when the WTL has issued the work order, there is no communication made to the petitioners informing that the issuance of the work order will be delayed. The work order was issued on July 4, 2025 but this Court finds that the work order has not been accepted by the petitioners. The WTL has issued a show- cause notice and in the show-cause notice there is no mentioning that the WTL will blacklist the petitioners, without mentioning that the petitioners will be blacklisted, by the impugned order the petitioners have been restrained from undertaking any activities with the 4 WTL including participation of tender for a period of one year with the WTL. 8. Considering the above, this Court finds that the impugned order wherein the WTL has restrained the petitioners for participating in the tender for one year is bad in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. 9. WPA 11069 of 2026 is disposed of. 10. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)