Progressive Mining Products Vs Secl

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:14008-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 202 of 2025

¶6

1 - Progressive Mining Products Through Its Proprietor, Ramesh Kumar Shrivastav, S/o Late Sitaram Prasad Shrivastav, Aged About 84 Years Of Age, Office And Residence- Devnandan Nagar, Phase- 1, Near Mourya Garden, P.O. S E C L, P. S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Secl Through Its C M D, H. O. Bilaspur, P.O. S E C L, P.S. Sarkanda, Tehsil And Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For appellant Mr. Dillip Kumar Swain, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

24. 03.2025

¶16

1. Heard, Mr. Dillip Kumar Swain, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocatee for the Respondent.

¶17

2. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC

¶18

2

¶19

No. 1934/2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed.

¶20

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent SECL issued a purchase order of Paints and Varnishes of MADHOGARIHA make/ brand under the Tender Notice No. EP/LTE/11101153/119 dated 09/12/2011 and such purchase order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 12.01.2012. The total cost of work was Rs. 2,11,382/- and the delivery was to be made within 90 to 120 days from the date of order. In compliance of the said purchase order, the petitioner had supplied the required material through the Challan No. PMP/11-12/21 dated 16.01.2012 which was received by the Chief Store Keeper on 17.01.2012 and he complied with the order well within time. The petitioner had submitted the bills for its payment with respect to the above supplied goods on 20.01.2012 and after due verification and inspection, the bill amount was ordered for its payment directly to the bank account of the petitioner after deduction of security amount of Rs. 14,898/- on 27.02.2012 and the respondent was fully satisfied with the compliance of the purchase order. Subsequently, the security deposit of the petitioner has also been refunded on 02/12/2014 through the bank account of the petitioner.

¶21

4. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know about the inquiry initiated by the concerned authorities at Chirmiri area and the respondent made allegation that the petitioner in fact had not supplied the genine MADHUGARHIA brand paint as per the terms of their offer and supply order and a letter was issued on 27/08/2015 by the Chief Engineer (MM) SECL, Head Quarter issued to the petitioner in which it has been intimated that the Tender No. SECL/ BSP/ MMW/150 dated 03.12.2013 is canceled. The petitioner was only the participant who technically qualified the said tender and who was declared ineligible on the ground that inquiry against him was in process. The petitioner had deposited Rs. 2,74,000/- on 17/02/2014 as an earnest money and Rs. 5000/- as tender fees but the said tender was being canceled and

¶22

3

¶23

the above deposits of the petitioner was not refunded. The petitioner had made a complaint to the Chief Vigilance Officer explaining the casual approach of the SECL authorities in floating and canceling the tender and thereafter being aggrieved by the action taken by the petitioner and others, the respondent authorities became vindictive and started taking punitive action against the petitioner. The show cause notice was also issued to him on 18.12.2015 and the dealing with the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect for the initial period of six months from the date of issue of the show cause notice. When the petitioner sought the information under the RTI, he came to know that the Tender No. SECL/ BSP/ MMW/150 opened on 18.02.2014 and 19.02.2014 it was canceled and it was intimated to him vide letter dated 27/08/2015 that though his tender was technically qualified yet his tender was not considered on the ground that the inquiry against him is pending. In the said letter dated 27.08.2015, it has been observed that the ban imposed upon the petitioner is not make applicable for the contracts concluded before 18.12.2015. It is subsequently learnt by the petitioner that the respondent are floating a new tender for a particular material.

¶24

5. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.12.2015 intimating him that all business dealing with the petitioner were suspended with immediate effect from the period of six months from the date of issuance of said notice. He submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice on 07/01/2016 and subsequently, he filed a WPC No. 495/ 2016 before this Court in which the said writ petition was decided on 25.02.2016 and directed the respondents to decide the cause shown by the petitioner within the maximum period of 45 days from the date of production of the copy of the order. Since, the respondents have not decided the cause of the petitioner, he filed a contempt petition also before this Court and in the meantime the petitioner informed about the impugned order in which it is stated that all the business dealings with the petitioner are banned for the period of three years with

¶25

4

¶26

effect from 18/12/2015 i.e. from the date of issuance of Show Cause Notice which is under challenge in the present writ petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the inquiry proceeding made by the SECL against the above preferred supply order dated 12.01.2012 that M/s Madhogarhia Paints Manufacturing Company Kolkata has confirmed that M/s Progressive Mining Pruducts did not procure the order material from them for supply to Chirmiry area and thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioner to show as to why the business dealing with the petitioner’s firm should not be banned for the minimum period of three years for using unfair means to meet the supply order dated 12.01.2012 on behalf of M/s Madhogarhia Paints Manufacturing Company Kolkata. The petitioner submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice on 19.04.2016 and explained that there was urgency of material at Chirmiry area in connection with the safety fortnight preparation and the principal company informed that due to some problem, they could not provide the materials within short span of time and advised the petitioner to obtain supply from M/s Rimi Coating Industries Limited, Bilaspur and explained that he has procured the complete ordered material from M/s Rimi Coating Industries Limited, Bilaspur and supplied the same to SECL Chirmiri area. After considering the reply, the SECL found that the petitioner has resort to unfair mean to execute the work order dated 12.01.2012 and passed the impugned order dated 07.06.2016 pending all the business dealing with the petitioner firm for the period of three years i.e. from the date of issuance of show cause notice and suspension of business.

¶27

6. The respondent/ SECL have filed their return and submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with the Clause 4.7.7 read with Para 4.7.10 of the Coal India Purchase Manual. On 18.04.2016 after passing of the order dated 25.02.2016 passed in WPC No. 495/2016, the Respondent/ SECL constituted a committee for making inquiry into the affairs of M/s Progressive Mining. During the inquiry, the personal hearing was

¶28

5

¶29

offered to the petitioner who also submitted the documents at the time of hearing. After examining the documents submitted by the petitioner and reply filed by him, the committee submitted its final report on 12.05.2016 and it was found by the committee that the petitioner has resorted to unfair means to execute the supply order dated 12.01.2015 on behalf of M/s Madhogarhia Paints Manufacturing Company Kolkata by willfully suppressing various facts and recommended for banning of business of M/s Progressive Mining. The said recommendation of the committee was submitted before the competent authority on 18.05.2016 through the Director (Technical), SECL, Bilaspur who decided to ban the business dealing with the M/s Progressive Mining from the date of suspension of business i.e. with effect from 18.12.2015 and in view of the same, the impugned order on 07/06/2016 was passed by the competent authority banning the business dealing with M/s Progressive Mining for the period of three years.

¶30

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner has committed misdeed by procuring the said Madhogarhia Paints from M/s Rimi Coating Industries Limited Bilaspur and not obtained the same from its manufactured company and therefore, the order passed by SECL is just and proper which is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

¶31

8. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that in the order dated 25.02.2016 passed in WPC No. 495/2016, it was directed that in the event that the respondent proposed to pass an order adverse to the petitioner, they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind to the show cause notice, the cause shown and considering of the same. But the respondent have not applied its mind before passing the order, and has not passed any reasoned and detailed order, the respondent SECL has stated that it appears that the petitioner has not supplied genuine Madhoharhia Paint/ Brand material and he is required to

¶32

6

¶33

purchase the same from its manufacturer company whereas he has purchased it from M/s Rimi Coating Industries Limited, Bilaspur. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has supplied the paint of other brand, it is only the allegation that he has not purchased the said Madhogarhia Paint from its manufacturer company. There is no allegation that the material supplied by the petitioner is sub-standard or any deficiency in its quality. The entire bills have been paid and the security deposit have been paid after full satisfaction of the goods supplied by the petitioner. After completion of the said work order and after about a year of payments of the bills the respondent issued the show cause notice on 18.12.2015 which is almost about four years after the supply of the material which itself shows the mala fide on the part of the respondent authorities and the impugned order tagged with a stigma upon the petitioner with the view to disqualify in further tender process. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and also the order dated 18.12.2015 and 07/06/2016 may be quashed.

¶34

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that by the order dated 07.06.2016, the business dealing with the petitioner was banned for the period of three years with effect from 18.12.2015 and the said period is now over. The order in question and the action of ban has been taken against the petitioner by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to him and by the detailed order, the order of banning the business dealing with the petitioner has been passed in which there is no illegality and the appeal filed by the writ appellant is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ petition as well as writ appeal.

¶36

11. It is not disputed by the parties that in compliance of the purchase order dated 12.01.2012, the required material having same brand/ make of

¶37

7

¶38

Madhohariha Paints was supplied by the petitioner to the respondent on 16/17.01.2012 and after being satisfied the supply of requisite goods, the bills have been paid to the petitioner after deducting the security deposit with the same and the purchase order was duly complied with by both the parties. At that time, there was no objection by the respondent till the payment of bills that the said goods was not purchased from its manufacturer company and it is not the same quality/ brand for which the purchase order was issued. It also hardly makes any difference that the petitioner has not purchase the said goods from its manufacturer company but the sum and substance is that, he supplied the same goods which is required under the purchase order to the respondent. It is only when in subsequent tender, the petitioner was participated he was only eligible bidder and the said tender was canceled and the petitioner make complaint to the Vigilance Cell of the SECL then the SECL started taking action against the petitioner and inquiry was initiated in which ultimately the order dated 18.12.2015 and 07.06.2016 has been passed. Since the purchase order has already been complied with and that contract was over without any objection by either of the parties, it cannot be reopened by saying that the petitioner has not purchase the goods from its manufacturer company and thereby he suppressed the material fact and committed misdeed while pursuing the purchase order dated 12.01.2012. The petitioner has explained that there was necessity to minimum supply of the requisite goods at Chirmiri area and not purchased the said goods from its manufacturer company, lapse of time would be apprehended and thereby after proper communication, he purchase the goods from M/s Rimi Coating Industries and supplied it to the respondent/ SECL. It cannot be said to be a misdeed of suppression of any material fact when non of the parties had any grievance in the said supply and after due satisfaction the bill etc. have also been settled between the parties. Initiation of subsequent inquiry of that basis alone would not be a proper exercise of the powers of the authorities. The

¶39

8

¶40

order dated 18/12/2015 has already been challenged by the petitioner in WPC No. 495/2016 in which the said writ petition was disposed of by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 25.02.2016 observing that in the event that the respondent proposed to pass an order adverse to the petitioner, they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind, to the show cause notice, the cause shown and consideration of the same. Thereafter, the order dated 07.06.2016 has been passed in which it has been observed that:-

¶41

5. When enquired by SECL vigilance department, M/s. Madhogarhia Paints Mfg. Co. in their letter dated 07.03.2013 clearly indicated that you have not procured any material from their end for onward supply In the above letter they have not mentioned anything about their advise to you to procure the paints from other authorized dealer M/s Rimi Coating Industries who is incidentally your competitor who offered their own ‘Rimi’ make paints in the subject tender.

¶42

12. As we have already observed that it hardly makes any difference that the petitioner procured the said goods from other dealer i.e. M/s Rimi Coating Industries Limited, Bilaspur and not procured directly from the manufacturer company but the quality or supply within time is not disputed by the respondent and he made entire bills and paid the same after adjusting the security depositing, therefore, the order dated 07.06.2016 is also not sustainable imposing ban upon the petitioner for the period of three years with effect from 18.12.2015 i.e. from the date of issue of show cause notice and suspension of business. The foundation of the said two orders itself is found defective. Even if the period of three years of ban is over, yet it appears to be a stigmatic order which may come on the future business prospects of the petitioner.

¶43

13. For the foregoing reasons, we find force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ appellant and unable to sustain the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶44

9

¶45

14. In the result, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is allowed . The impugned order dated 09.12.2024 passed in WPC No. 1934/2016 is hereby set aside. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order dated 18.12.2015 (Annexure-P/2) as well as order dated 07.06.2016 (AnnexureP/1) are hereby quashed.

¶46

15. No order as to costs.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

¶51

Sagrika