M/S Manish Steels Vs Nmdc Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:11863-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1049 of 2026

¶6

M/s Manish Steels Through- Proprietor Manoj Kumar Jain Aged About 51 Years S/o Nemichand Jain R/o 224/3, Shanti Nagar, Post- Supela, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.)

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Nmdc Limited Through- Chairman - Cum Managing Director, Khanij Bhavan Masab Tank, Hyderabad (Telangana)

¶10

2 - The Manager (Mineral/stores) Nmdc Limited Biom -Bacheli Complex District- Dantewada (C.G.)

¶11

3 - Synise Technologies Limited Through- Director 4th Floor, Vishwa Arcade Narhe, District- Pune (Maharashtra)

¶12

	---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate (through Video
No. 1 and 2	Conferencing)and Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate.

¶13

WPC No. 1055 of 2026

¶14

M/s Manish Steels Having Its OfÏce At- Nandini Road, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh- 490011, Factory- 193-194, Light Industrial Area, Bhilai-Durg, Chhattisgarh- 490026 Through Its Sole Proprietor Manoj Kumar Jain, S/oNemichand Jain, Aged About- 51 Years, R/o- Shanti Nagar, 224, Street-3, Supela, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.)

¶15

--- Petitioner(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

1 - Nmdc Limited Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Nmdc Tower, 10-3-311/a, Khanij Bhavan, Castle Hills, Masab Tank, Hyderabad- 500028

¶18

2 - Nmdc Limited Bacheli Complex, Bailadila Iron Ore Mines, DistrictDantewada, Chhattisgarh Through Its General Manager

¶19

2

¶20

3 - Deputy General Manager (Materials) Nmdc Limited, Biom, Bacheli Complex, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh- 494553

¶21

4 - Assistant Manager (Materials) Materials Management Department- Mc Section, Nmdc Limited, Biom, Bacheli Complex, District- Dantewada, Chhattisgarh- 494553

¶22

5 - M/s Synise Technologies Limited Naik House, Sr No. 1/15/2, Plot No. 1, Shankarrao Mora Cooperative Housing Society, Hingne Budrukh, Karvenagar, Pune, Maharashtra- 411052 (Authorized E-Commerce Service Provider For Nmdc)

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav, Advocate (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Vijay Sahu, Advocates.

¶25

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate (through Video No. 1 to 4 / Caveator Conferencing) and Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate.

¶26

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶28

Order on Board

¶29

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶30

12/03/2026

¶31

1 Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon {WPC No. 1049/2026}, Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav {WPC No. 1055/2026}, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel for the respondents/NMDC.

¶32

2 By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):

¶33

WPC No. 1049/2026

¶34

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to allow the petitioner's firm M/s Manish Steels to participate in Auction of NMDC-Bacheli/ SYN01/MARCH-2026.

¶35

3

¶36

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities provide information to the petitioner related to his non-participation in the Auction ID21909.

¶37

10.3 That any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” WPC No. 1055/2026

¶38

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Certiorari, thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned communication/action dated 03.03.2026 (ANNEXURE P/13 issued by Respondent No. 3 whereby the Petitioner has been restrained/restricted from participating in the e-auction process of NMDC Limited, Bacheli Complex);

¶39

10.2 That, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent authorities to permit the Petitioner to participate in the e-auction process conducted by Respondent No. 2 (NMDC, Bacheli) through Resp. No. 5 (Synise Tech. Ltd.), including the auction scheduled on 10.03.2026, and in all future auctions in accordance with law;

¶40

10.3 That, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to release and deliver the remaining materials corresponding to the Delivery Orders issued in favour of the Petitioner, or in the alternative refund the amount of Rs. 59,46,568/-(Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Eight Only) along with applicable interest;

¶41

4

¶42

10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted. ”

¶43

3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner, in WPC No. 1049/2026 are that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Manish Steels having its registered ofÏce at Nandini Road, Bhilai District Durg (C.G.). The petitioner earlier has also participated in various types of NIT's and tenders, and is in business with Respondent/ NMDC. The petitioner is also duly registered with Respondent/ Synise Technologies Limited. The petitioner earlier has participated in the tender bearing Auction ID-18670 of August 2024 related to lifting of scrap materials of the year 2024. For participating in such kind of tenders the bidder has to be registered with Synise Technologies, the petitioner got himself registered with Respondent/ Synise technologies on account of which the petitioner was duly declared as H-1 and was provided the work order, further in the clause 4.2 of ‘Participation clause’ which says that on completion of the registration process and payment of prescribed EMD as outlined in 4.1 above, Seller/Synise will activate the User ID to enter into website www.synisc.com. Prospective Bidders may please note that failure to submit the Membership Registration form duly filled and signed along with the prescribed documents will lead to non-activation of the User ID even if the prescribed EMD has been remitted. When the petitioner tried to submit his EMD, the ofÏcials of Synise have apprised the petitioner that authorities of NMDC have restricted the petitioner's firm for participation in the said auction due to pendency of criminal case. According to the petitioner, there is no show- cause notice from side of any authorities, neither there is any order regarding debar/blacklisting of

¶44

5

¶45

the petitioner's firm by NMDC or Synise technologies. The petitioner, after getting the knowledge of debarring him to participate unofÏcially, sent a mail to the respondent-NMDC that the petitioner is registered with Synise Technologies, neither he has been debarred or blacklisted but still he is unable to participate in the upcoming tender.

¶46

4 The facts, as projected by the petitioner, in WPC No. 1055/2026 are that the petitioner is a registered and regular participant in the e-auctions conducted by NMDC Limited and has been conducting business with the respondent organization for several years. The petitioner had successfully participated in an e-auction conducted during 28-29 August 2024 (Auction ID 18670) and purchased multiple lots of scrap materials by depositing and paying an aggregate amount exceeding Rs 5,14,07,868/- Delivery Orders were issued in favour of the petitioner and substantial quantities of the materials were already lifted by the petitioner after complying with all procedural requirements. However, on 12.11.2024, vehicles engaged by the petitioner for transportation of materials were arbitrarily detained within the premises of NMDC Bacheli, allegedly on the basis of suspicion of excess loading. Subsequently, an FIR bearing Crime No. 54/2024 came to be registered at Police Station Bacheli against the proprietor of the petitioner firm under Sections 305 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. According to the petitioner, the allegations in the said FIR are false and baseless and the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court in MCrC (A) No. 390/2025 vide order dated 21.03.2025. The seized materials were also released in favour of the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dantewada vide order dated 07.10.2025. The investigation in the said case is still pending and no chargesheet has been filed till date. Despite the petitioner having already paid the full

¶47

6

¶48

consideration amount for the purchased lots, materials worth approximately Rs.59,46,568/- remain undelivered by the respondents. The petitioner made several written representations to the respondent authorities requesting delivery of the pending lots or refund of the amount, extension of delivery period, and issuance of pending invoices, however no effective action was taken by the respondents. In February 2026, the respondents notified a fresh e-auction bearing Auction ID 21909 scheduled on 10.03.2026. When the petitioner attempted to participate in the said auction through the ofÏcial portal, the petitioner was verbally informed by Respondent No.2 that the petitioner firm had been "blacklisted" by NMDC Limited and therefore would not be permitted to participate in the auction. No show-cause notice, opportunity of hearing, or written order had been served upon the petitioner prior to such action. Aggrieved by such arbitrary conduct, the petitioner through counsel issued a legal notice dated 27.02.2026 calling upon the respondents to clarify the status of the petitioner and withdraw the alleged blacklisting. In response to the said notice, the respondent authority (Respondent No. 3) sent an email dated 03.03.2026 stating that since an FIR bearing Crime No. 54/2024 is pending against the proprietor of the petitioner firm, the petitioner is being restricted from participating in any e-auction process of the NMDC until final disposal of the criminal case or further orders.

¶49

5 On the other hand, Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel for the respondent/NMDC, relying on the preliminary submissions filed in WPC No. 1055/2026, submits that the NMDC Limited is Government Company which is wholly owned and controlled by Central Government, proposed to set-up a 3 MTPA capacity Greenfield Integrated Steel Plant in Nagarnar, District Jagdalpur. The present writ petitions are

¶50

7

¶51

misconceived, not maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court without disclosing the true and complete facts relating to his involvement in a criminal case and the breach of contractual obligations committed by him. The petitioner has an efÏcacious alternative remedy of arbitration as provided under Clause 8 of the Auction Catalogue for the year 2023-24, under which the petitioner had participated in the e-auction. The issue related to delivery of remaining material/refund is within the scope of clause 8 of the Auction Catalogue, which the petitioner has conveniently by passed and merged all prayers together of the auction of 2024 and 2026. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

¶52

6 Ms. Ali submits that the petitioner is involved in a serious criminal case registered as FIR No. 54 of 2024, which is presently pending adjudication before the competent Court. The grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not absolve him from the allegations leveled against him in the said FIR. The respondents have not blacklisted the petitioner at any point of time. The petitioner has only been restricted from participating in the e-auction till the outcome of the pending criminal case in order to safeguard the interest of the organization and maintain transparency and integrity in the auction process. The restriction imposed upon the petitioner is in accordance with the applicable rules, policies and contractual terms governing the e-auction process. The petitioner had participated in the auction process after accepting and declaring that he would abide by all the terms and conditions of the Auction Catalogue. As per Clause 7.13 of the Auction Catalogue for the year 2023-24, the petitioner had given a declaration agreeing to comply with the terms and conditions governing the auction process. Clause

¶53

8

¶54

7.13 states that “ Purchaser and his men are subject to the security rule of seller in force while in the seller's premises. The purchaser/their workmen agents or representatives shall not commit any nuisance, the for indulging in any anti-social activities in the seller's premises and the purchaser shall be liable for the good conduct, safety & discipline of his workmen. In case of any such activity, delivery will be suspended and strict action as per law will be taken including forfeiture of Payments Collected .” The petitioner had also given a similar declaration while participating in the e-auction for the year 2024. The petitioner was duly informed regarding the breach of contractual obligations through communication/e-mail dated 18.11.2025, wherein the petitioner was notified about the violation of the terms and conditions of the contract. It is pertinent to submit here that the petitioner was duly informed about restricting him from participating in the fresh auction bid vide the aforesaid email. The respondents are empowered to restrict participation of any bidder who is involved in criminal proceedings or who has committed breach of contractual obligations, in order to protect the interest of the organization and ensure fair conduct of the auction process. Such power flows from the internal rules and policies of the organization including Clause 12.6 of the Contract Management Manual, 2023 and Clause 9.8 of the Material Management Manual, 2024. The action taken by the respondents is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but is a reasonable administrative decision taken in accordance with the established rules and policy of the organization so as to maintain the integrity of the Auction process. The petitioner has attempted to mislead this Hon'ble Court by projecting that he has been blacklisted by the respondents, whereas in fact he has only been temporarily restricted from participation in the e-auction till the outcome of the criminal

¶55

9

¶56

proceedings pending against him. The process of blacklisting is a longdrawn process and for which a Committee is formed. Upon receipt of report by the Committee, the process of blacklisting begin with the issuance of show cause notice seeking explanation from the contractor. It's not a casual exercise. The present writ petitions have been filed only to pressurize the respondents and to avoid the consequences of the petitioner's own breach of contractual obligations, and therefore these petitions deserve to be dismissed with costs.

¶57

7 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶58

8 WPC No. 1049/2026 was filed on 28.02.2026 and WPC No. 1055/2026 was filed on 07.03.2026. However, WPC No. 1055/2026 came up for hearing before this Court on 10.03.2026 when this Court granted two week’s time to the respondent-NMDC to file its return. It was made clear that this Court would entertain the petition only with regard to the issue of blacklisting as it was submitted by the petitioner that it was done without affording an opportunity of hearing. When WPC No. 1049/2026, though was filed prior to filing of WPC No. 1055/2026, came up for hearing before this Court on 11.03.2026 on which date, Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therein sought permission of this Court to withdraw WPC No. 1049/2026 stating that the petitioner company has participated in the auction proceedings and that the petitioner has filed another petition being WPC No.1055/2026 wherein this Court has already passed order on 10.03.2026. On 11.03.2026 itself, this Court directed the counsel namely Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, to appear before this Court and answer the query as to why he did not inform this Court that the petitioner Company had filed another petition being WPC No. 1049/2026 and the matters were directed to be listed

¶59

10

¶60

today. Accordingly, both the petitions have been listed today and both the counsel, viz. Mr. Krishna Tandon and Mr. Jaideep Singh Yadav have appeared for the petitioner in their respective petitions i.e. WPC No. 1049/2026 and WPC No. 1055/2026.

¶61

9 Today, both the learned counsel have appeared. On a specific query put by this Court to Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPC No. 1049/2026, regarding his statement made on 11.03.2026 that the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings, it has been submitted that such statement was made on the basis of instructions earlier given by the petitioner and that subsequently the petitioner retracted from the said statement and informed that he had in fact not participated in the auction.

¶62

10 The explanation offered by the learned counsel does not inspire confidence. The conduct of the petitioner in filing two separate writ petitions raising substantially the same grievance and pursuing them simultaneously before this Court clearly reflects lack of candour and fairness in approaching the Court. The petitioner was under a bounden duty to disclose all material facts including the filing of the earlier petition when the second petition was instituted and taken up for consideration. At the same time, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also ought to have exercised greater vigilance while drafting and presenting the petitions. Before instituting proceedings before this Court, it was incumbent upon the learned counsel also to seek clear and proper instructions from the petitioner and to verify the factual position, particularly with regard to the pendency of another petition involving the same cause of action. Greater care and diligence on the part of the counsel would have avoided the present situation.

¶63

11

¶64

11 It is well settled that a litigant invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution must approach the Court with clean hands and must disclose all material facts. Suppression of material facts or filing multiple proceedings on the same cause of action amounts to abuse of the process of Court.

¶65

12 In the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. Filing two petitions on substantially identical issues and failing to disclose the pendency of the earlier petition at the relevant time amounts to suppression of material facts and misuse of the process of the Court. In view of the aforesaid conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner.

¶66

13 The petitioner has tried to controvert his own submission as on the earlier occasion, it was stated by one of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had participated in the auction proceedings and later on, he retracted from his own statement. It has further been claimed that the petitioner has been blacklisted whereas the fact of the matter is that no such order has been passed by the respondent NMDC and he has merely been restricted from participation in the auction proceedings in view of the offence registered by the police against it. The petitioner tried to mislead the Court by firstly filing two petitions and thereafter, trying to withdraw one petition when the fact of filing of other petition came to the knowledge of this Court. The petitioner engaged two different counsel for substantially same cause of action and filed two petitions which amounts to clear abuse and misuse of process of law and also amounts to playing with the Court.

¶67

12

¶68

14 Accordingly, both the petitions viz. WPC No. 1049/2026 and WPC No. 1055/2026 are dismissed . Considering the manner in which the petitioner has approached this Court and the unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings created by filing two petitions on the same cause of action, this Court deems it appropriate to impose an exemplary cost of Rs.5,00,000 (Rs. Five Lacs Only) to be deposited by the petitioner with a period of four weeks from today, before the Registry of this Court failing which the same shall be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The said amount so deposited by the petitioner shall be further transmitted to the Children Observation Home, Pulgaon, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶69

15 Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶70

Sd/- Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶71

Amit

¶72

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.03.16 18:24:34 +0530

M/S Manish Steels v. Nmdc Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manish Steels v. Nmdc Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

In the Matter of Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation Vs the Union of India

Santosh Nisad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Smt. Rajani Gupta

Smt. Sharda Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shravan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Parveen Akhter Vs State of Chhattisgarh