M/S J.S. Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Steel Authority of India Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:8636

¶3

RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.02.20 14:01:22 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 708 of 2026

¶7

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 Shri Jitendra Uppal, S/o Lt. Shri S K Uppal Aged About 55 Years, R/o Bhilai, Distt.- Durg (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

¶11

2 - Bhilai Steel Plant (A Unit Of Sail) Through Its Director In-Charge, Bhilai, DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Rourkela Steel Plant (A Unit Of Sail) Through Its Director In-Charge, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha.

¶13

4 - GM (MM) Rourkela Steel Plant Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha.

¶14

5 - AGM (HR) IR, R And Ga And Convener Standing Committee On Banning Of Business Dealings, Sail- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, District- Sundargarh, Odisha.

¶15

6 - Chief General Manager (HR) Sail- Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, DistrictSundargarh, Odisha.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate with Mrs.

¶19

: Astha Shukla, Advocate.

¶20

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶21

2

¶22

Order on Board 18/02/2026

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

¶25

“(i) That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 /Appellate Authority to decide the appeal dated 26.12.2025 filed by the Petitioner under Clause 10 of SAIL’s Guidelines on Banning of Business Dealings, 2024 expeditiously within 30 days.

¶26

(ii) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a registered supplier at Bhilai Steel Plant (henceforth referred to as “BSP”), a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SAIL”), having ongoing contracts with BSP and other units of SAIL. He further submits that a ban has been imposed upon the petitioner alleging anti-competitive practice (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). Learned counsel next submits that the order of banning dated 03.12.2025 has been challenged by petitioner by filing an appeal before respondent No.1 on 26.12.2025 under Clause 10 of the SAIL’s Guidelines on Banning of

¶28

3

¶29

Business Dealings, 2024. He also submits that an application dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure -P/3) has also been submitted to respondent No.1 requesting expeditious disposal of the appeal, despite that, the said appeal has not yet been decided. Hence learned counsel prays that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal expeditiously, within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶30

Having considered the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and further considering the fact that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order of banning, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.1 is supposed to decide the said appeal expeditiously.

¶31

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 / CMD to decide the appeal filed by petitioner, after considering all the contentions raised therein, as early as possible, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order.

¶32

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Rukhsar

M/S J.S. Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S J.S. Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dogendra Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Aatmaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bank of Baroda Vs the Collector and District Magistrate

Smt. Motim Sahu Vs Bank of Baroda

Rajkumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh