Sagar Industries Vs Atal Bihari Vajpayee University Bilaspur

¶1

1

CGHC010266372026

2026:CGHC:31957-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3691 of 2026

¶6

Sagar Industries Through Its Proprietor, Deepak Singhaniya Son Of Late Puran Lal Singhaniya, Aged About 36 Years, Residence Of Near Bonga Talab, Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner

versus

ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA

¶11

1 - Atal Bihari Vajpayee University Bilaspur In Front Of Koni Police Station, Bilaspur Ratanpur Road, Koni, District -Bilaspur (C.G.) Through Its Registrar, Atal Bihari Vajpayee University, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Vice Chancellor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee University Bilaspur In Front Of Koni Police Station, Bilaspur Ratanpur Road, Koni, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

_________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents/University : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

27. 07.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for respondents/University.

¶20

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

¶21

2

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order / Office memo dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities whereby the firm of the petitioner has been restricted for sale and purchase in future and the firm of the petitioner has been blacklisted.

¶23

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the participation of petitioner, fairly in the forthcoming Tenders of the university.

¶24

10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.”

¶25

3. On 16.07.2026, Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s firm, which is a regular supplier of all types of furniture to the University, has been blacklisted by the respondent-University without issuing any show cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing, merely on the basis of some frivolous complaint. He further submitted that in an identical case being Singhaniya Group and Industries v. Atal Bihari Vajpayee University & Another {WPC No.3016/2026, decided on 23.06.2026} this Court had quashed the impugned order so far it related to the said firm and hence, similar order may be passed in this case also.

¶26

4. Though Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned Advocate, who is in the panel of the respondent-University, was present in the Court and had appeared on behalf of the respondent-University in WPC No. 3016/2026 decided on 23.06.2026, had expressed his inability to accept notice on behalf of the respondent-University and submitted that he has been instructed by the Registrar of the respondent-University not to accept notice or any advance copy of the petition from any party. Accordingly,

¶27

3

¶28

notice has been issued to the respondent-University and it was directed to be served through the District Magistrate, Bilaspur.

¶29

5. In compliance of the Court’s order dated 16.07.2026, today, Dr.Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents/University and states that composite order was passed for blacklisting of the three firms including the petitioner’s firm on 03.12.2025 and out of said three firms, one namely Singhaniya Group and Industries had approached this Court by filing WPC No. 3016 of 2026, which was allowed vider order dated 23.06.2026 and impugned order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the respondent-University blacklisting the said firm was quashed and the respondents were directed to restore the said petitioner to the list of eligible suppliers, subject to compliance with law and the said direction of this Hon’ble Court passed in WPC No. 3016 of 2026 has already been complied with. He further submitted that the case of the petitioner is also stand on the same footing, necessary orders would be passed as per Executive Council Meeting dated 24.07.2026.

¶30

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 blacklisting the petitioner's firm forms part of a composite order by which three firms were blacklisted. It is also an admitted position that one of the affected firms, namely Singhaniya Group and Industries, had challenged the very same order before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3016 of 2026, wherein, vide order dated

¶31

4

¶32

23.06.2026, the order of blacklisting was quashed and the respondentUniversity was directed to restore the said firm to the list of eligible suppliers.

¶33

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has fairly submitted that the said order has already been complied with and has further stated, on instructions, that the case of the present petitioner also stands on the same footing and appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondent-University in terms of the decision to be taken in the Executive Council Meeting dated 24.07.2026.

¶34

8. In view of the aforesaid fair statement made on behalf of the respondent-University, which is taken on record, this Court is of the opinion that no further adjudication is required in the present petition.

¶35

9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent-University to consider and pass appropriate orders in respect of the petitioner's firm, as per Executive Council Meeting dated 24.07.2026, keeping in view the order passed by this Court in Singhaniya Group and Industries v. Atal Bihari Vajpayee University & Another (W.P.(C) No. 3016 of 2026 decided on 23.06.2026). No order as to costs.

¶36

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶37

Chandra

Sagar Industries v. Atal Bihari Vajpayee University Bilaspur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Industries v. Atal Bihari Vajpayee University Bilaspur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaytri Awasthi Vs Reva Ben Savariya

Naveen Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Kushwaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kundan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shakti Chakraborty Vs the State of Chhattisgarh