M/s. Hitesh Bhai Patel A Proprietorship Firm Registered Address E-9, Malviya Nagar Nagar, Durg v. 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited
Case Details
1 WPC No.4353 of 2025 2025:CGHC:41319-DB NAFR JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.18 17:49:39 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No.4353 of 2025 M/s. Hitesh Bhai Patel A Proprietorship Firm Registered Address E-9, Malviya Nagar Nagar, Durg, District- Durg, C.G. Pin Code- 491002. Through Its Proprietor Shri Hitesh Bhai Patel, S/o Late Shri Gordhan Bhai Patel, Aged About 59 Years, R/o-E-9, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District- Durg, C.G. Pin Code- 491002. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Steel Authority Of India Limited (SAIL) Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi Pin Code- 110003. 2 - Bhilai Steel Plant Through Its Director-In-Charge, Bhiali Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. Pin Code- 490001 3 - Executive Director (Works) Bhiali Steel Plant, Ispat Bhawan, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. Pin Code- 490001 4 - General Manager (In Charge) Wire Rod Mill (W R M), Bhiali Steel Plant, Bhilai, District- Durg, C.G. Pin Code- 490001 5 - Corporate Materials Management Group Steel Authority Of India Limited (S A I L), Through The Chairman And Managing Director, Steel Authority Of India Limited (S A I L), Ispat Bhawan, Lodi Road, New Delhi, Pin Code- 110003. 2 WPC No.4353 of 2025 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/08/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filled for following reliefs: a. Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. b. Hold that the action of the Respondent Authorities in issuance of the impugned Suspension Order dated 30.07.2025 (ΑΝΝΝΕXURE -P/1) which in fact is a Suspension-cum-Banning Order, is bad in law. c) Hold that the impugned the impugned Suspension Order dated 30.07.2025 (ΑΝΝNEXURE-P/1) which in fact is a Suspension-cum-Banning Order, has been issued by the Respondent Authorities with a premeditated, predetermined and closed mind and thus, is untenable in the eyes of law and accordingly, deserves to be quashed and set aside. d) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Suspension Order dated 30.07.2025 (ANNNEXURE-P/1) which in fact is a Suspension-cum- Banning Order. 3 WPC No.4353 of 2025 e) Hold and Declare that the Clauses/provisions specifically Clause 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, & 5.7 of the impugned 'Guidelines on Banning of business dealings' (ANNEXURE - P/2) effective from 01.01.2022 including the Revision 2: Effective from 04.05.2024 are contrary to and in teeth of the Judgements and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and deserves to be struck down. f) Strike Down the Clauses/provisions specifically Clause 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, & 5.7 of the impugned 'Guidelines on Banning of business dealings' (ANNEXURE – P/2) g) Grant the cost of the petition to the Petitioner. h) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned Suspension Order does not reveal any specific reasons for initiation of Banning Procedure against the Petitioner. He would submit that the so called enquiry conducted against the petitioner is an ex parte enquiry because the same has been conducted in an illegal and arbitrary manner that too without following the due process of law. In fact, the show cause notice has been issued only to fulfill the empty formalities. He would submit that the present is a classic case of appeal from caesar to 4 WPC No.4353 of 2025 caesar’s wife because the appellate authority itself sanctioned initiation of banning of business dealing of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the remedy of appeal so provided to the petitioner is neither efficacious nor effective as the same is just an empty formality with no scope of substantial justice to be delivered. He further submits that in cases where a constitutional right is infringed, writs would ordinarily be the appropriate remedy. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order which is under challenge is an order of suspension which has been passed prior to taking decision for banning the petitioner. He would submit that the committee who has to pass an order of banning has decided to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and final decision about banning of the petitioner will be taken only after receipt of the response of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the order of suspension itself reflected that the committee has to take a decision about the banning of the petitioner and before such decision the order of suspension has been passed which is temporary in nature, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that it is a premature petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner can only challenge the decision of banning if the same will be taken against him and for the said 5 WPC No.4353 of 2025 purpose also the petitioner has to approach the appellate authority who is the Director, Incharge, BSP. 4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. From bare perusal it is evident that the impugned order has been passed on 30/7/2025 under the heading of ‘suspension order in respect of business dealings’ levelling certain allegations that (i) non compliance of minimum wage payment, bonus payment and AWA; (ii) forged/fabricated documents as proof of payment of SDC; (iii) forged and misinterpretation of cheques; and (iv) proof of payment of bonus not provided by contractor, payment of bonus cannot be established. By said order impugned, the business dealing with the petitioner has been suspended w.e.f. 30/7/2025 for a period of six months or till the decision of the management, whichever is earlier. In the order impugned, only the business dealing has been suspended. So far as banning of the petitioner is concerned, the matter placed before the Standing Banning Committee of BSP and in the meanwhile the business dealing of the petitioner has been suspended and show cause notice issued to him. In response to the same, the petitioner ought to have submitted its response and thereafter, if the banning committee decided to impose banning upon the petitioner, he is required to avail the appropriate remedy of appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Director, Incharge, BSP, which is manifest from 6 WPC No.4353 of 2025 the office order dated 4/6/2021, copy of which has been placed before this Court during the course of hearing and the same is taken on record. 6. It is a well-settled principle of law that when a remedy is available, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily be exercised. 7. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of H.P. and Others v Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited & Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499 held that normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternate remedy. 8. The Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., (2020) 19 SCC 172, reiterated that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when a statutory forum is available and has not been availed. 9. In light of the above facts and settled legal position, this Court
Decision
finds no ground to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies as may be available to the petitioner under the office order dated 4/6/2021 of the SAIL, BSP. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Gowri/Jyoti