1 2026:CGHC:15964-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1567 of 2026 1 - M/s J.S. Forge Pvt. Having Its Registered Office At 2-B Industrial Estate Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Represented Through Its Authorized Signatory Jitendra Uppal, S/o Lt. S. K. Uppal Aged About 55 Years, R/o Bhilai, Durg, C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003. 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant (A Unit Of S.A.I.L.) Through Its Director In-Charge, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Rourkela Steel Plant (A Unit Of S.A.I.L.) Through Its Director In-Charge, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha. 4 - G.M. (M.M.) Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha. 5 - A.G.M. (H.R.) I.R., R And G.A. And Convener Standing Committee On Banning Of Business Dealings, S.A.I.L.- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha. 6 - Chief General Manager (H R) S.A.I.L.- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha. --- Respondent(s) & WPC No. 1585 of 2026 1 - M/s J.S. Steel Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At Plot No. 1/1a/1d Industrial Estate, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh- 490026, Represented Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Jitendra Uppal, S/o Late Shri S.K. Uppal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant (A Unit Of Sail) Through Its Director In-Charge, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rourkela Steel Plant (A Unit Of Sail) Through Its Director In-Charge, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha 4 - GM (MM) Rourkela Steel Plant Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.04.13 18:36:29 +0530 2 5 - AGM (Hr) Ir, R And Ga And Convener Standing Committee On Banning Of Business Dealings, Sail- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha 6 - Chief General Manager (Hr) Sail- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08.04.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 Since common facts and issues are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2 By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs in both the writ petitions: “(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority/CMD SAIL and order dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P/2) passed by GM (MM), SAIL, Rourkela Steel Plant. (ii) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3 Facts of the case are that, the petitioners are registered supplier at Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP), a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) having ongoing contracts with BSP. A ban was imposed against the petitioners on 03.12.2025 alleging anti-competitive practice 3 (formation of cartel) to influence the bid while participating in Bid No. GeM/25/2025/B/6244862, dated 17.05.2025 for procurement of "Wearing Parts of Hammer Crusher (primary) PH-III on OTE basis for RMHP(M). This order of banning/blacklisting were challenged by the petitioners before this court in WPC Nos. 6610 of 2025 and 6608 of 2025 interalia on the ground that impugned order of banning dated 03.12.2025 is in violation of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as the same has been issued with mala fide intention, in a complete arbitrary fashion without adhering to principles of natural justice, contrary to the procedure established by law. The respondents have utterly failed to consider the fact that both the companies are separate legal entity and mere becoming a Director in another company is not a disqualification and no conflict of interest can be presumed unless established with facts. After hearing the parties, both the writ petitioners were dismissed by this court holding it not maintainable on account of having statutory remedy of appeal in view of Clause-10 of the Guidelines on Banning of Business Dealings. Thereafter the petitioners approached before the Appellate Authority i.e. CMD, however, when no decision was taken on their appeal, they preferred writ petitions being WPC No.708 of 2026 and 719 of 2026 before the Single Bench of this court which were disposed on 18.02.2026 directing the appellate authority i.e. CMD to decide their appeal preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of the said order. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 18.03.2026 the appellate authority has confirmed the blacklisting/banning order dated 03.12.2025 and the 4 petitioners have been banned from every business dealing with all the plants/units of SAIL including Bhilai Steel Plant for a period of two years w.e.f. 03.12.2025. Hence these writ petitions. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, no oral hearing was granted to the petitioners by the appellate authority. Even no enquiry report was supplied to them. The maximum punishment under the banning policy is only two years whereas, the actual punishment inflicted upon the petitioners exceeds the maximum period of two years as they were also banned for six months (w.e.f. 10.07.2025) during enquiry which was not included in the final punishment. The banning policy of 2024 of SAIL requires detailed investigation and enquiry before banning an entity, however, no enquiry report has been ever supplied to the petitioners before passing the impugned order of banning, the petitioners are totally unaware of the contents of the inquiry report which forms the basis of conclusion of the authorities for alleging anti-competitive practice against the petitioners. Thus, the order passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of banning vitiates and the same may be quashed. 5 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material annexed with the petitions. 6 From perusal of order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the appellate authority it transpires that on the complaint made by the complainant, the allegation against the petitioners being participating in a tender by forming a cartel to influence the bid in an anti-competitive manner, was found proved. It was also proved that both the firms were controlled by the same set of Directors. Even both the petitioners submitted their 5 offer in GeM from the same IP address for both technical & financial parts. The contention of petitioners that no opportunity of hearing was granted to them is factually incorrect as show cause notices were issued to them on 23.08.2025 seeking written explanation within 15 days, to which they duly replied on 02.09.2025. Personal hearing was also granted to them on 16.10.2025 and their representatives appeared for the same on 16.10.2025 itself and they filed their written submissions also denying the allegations and prayed for taking lenient view. Considering all these facts the respondents decided to ban business dealing with both the petitioners for two years w.e.f. 03.12.2025 to 02.12.2027. Thus, it appears that due procedure seems to have been followed by the respondents while banning the petitioners. 7 Further, while deciding the appeals of petitioners, the appellate authority observed that the SAIL Banning Guidelines does not provide any provision for conducting personal hearing at appellate stage. The submission of bids by related firm in the same tender and submitting false declaration with an intent to gain undue benefits from SAIL-RSP were duly proved by the appellate authority and thus affirmed the order dated 03.12.2025 banning the petitioners from every business dealing with all the plants/units of SAIL including Bhilai Steel Plant for a period of two years w.e.f. 03.12.2025, in which we do not find any illegality or perversity to entertain the petitions. 8 Both the writ petitions fails and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder