Shri Ganesh Electrical Co v. Assistant Law Officer

Assistant Law Officer Shri Hitesh Bhatt (Munpl) And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Lakshmi Kant Singh : Vivek Ratan Agrawal Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. (Per Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. The writ petition is up for hearing and disposal. Dr. Vikash Kumar, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Lakshmi Kant Singh, learned advocate appear on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent.

2. Upon hearing learned advocates for the parties on earlier occasions we had before us objection on maintainability of the writ petition, to be dealt with. Today Mr. Agarwal hands up order dated 12th September, 2025 made by the first Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. He submits, petitioner's writ petition for same relief stood dismissed on it having also filed before this Court. Paragraphs 7 to 9 from the order is reproduced below. " 7. From the pleadings, it is clear that the effect of the petitioner's challenge in the present writ petition is the banning order dated 17.07.2025 consequential disqualification of its bid in the GEM tender. However, it is an admitted position that the the writ petitioner has already jurisidiction of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by filing Writ-C No.30233 of 2025 seeking the very same reliefs. The said writ invoked 2 WRIC No. 30233 of 2025 petition is pending adjudication and is fixed for hearing on 12.09.2025.

8. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the present with petition is dismissed as not maintainable. " On query Dr. Kumar submits, he will proceed to argue on accepting the order having said his client had petitioned both the High Courts for same relief.

3. For pressing contention on maintainability Mr. Agarwal draws attention to his client's affidavit dated 6th September, 2025 and submits, policy for debarment from business dealings stood issued on 5th May, 2023. Per clause 2.3, it came into force from the date of its issuance. Clause 2.4 provides for applicability of the policy to, inter alia, under execution contracts not yet closed on date of implementation of the policy. Clause 2.5 extends the applicability to subsidiaries/JVs (Joint Ventures) of NTPC as well. Clauses 2.4 and 2.5 are reproduced below. "2.4 The provisions of this policy will be effective on investigations conducted or misconduct/irregularities noticed on the part of any Agency in all contracts awarded on or after the date of implementation of this policy and in the contracts under execution or contracts not yet closed, on the date of the implementation of this policy.

2.5 The provisions of this policy shall be applicable for Subsidiaries/JVs of NTPC as well. " (emphasis supplied) He submits, it follows that under definition clause 3(ii)(a) there stands named CMD (NTPC) to be the appellate authority for all cases. The writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable as there has been inquiry into facts for banning petitioner. Remedy of petitioner against impugned banning order is to file appeal before the appellate authority.

4. On the preliminary objection Dr. Kumar relies on said clause 3(ii)(a) to lay emphasis that CMD (NTPC) is mandated to be 3 WRIC No. 30233 of 2025 appellate authority. He then, refers to clause 113 under heading 'business banning policy', given in the special conditions of contract. The clause is reproduced below. " 113. Business Banning Policy is an integral part of the Tender Documents; irrespective of the fact whether it has been issued with tender documents or not. "NTPC Limited" shall be read as "Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd." wherever mentioned in the policy". (emphasis supplied) His submission is, application of the policy to his client being contractor of Meja Urja Nigam Private Limited (MUNPL) thus requires substitution of NTPC by MUNPL, wherever it appears in the policy. Coming back to clause 3(ii)(a) in policy dated 5th May, 2023 he submits, the appellate authority then becomes CMD (MUNPL). There is no such authority.

5. We accept petitioner's contention regarding maintainability of the writ petition on absence of alternative remedy.

6. Moving on Dr. Kumar takes us to impugned banning order dated 17th July, 2025. He points out from the subject that his client stands banned for period of two years across NTPC including its JVs and subsidiaries. He submits, the policy including providing for banning applicable to his client has been demonstrated to be as in respect of MUNPL. The banning order having wider scope thus is beyond jurisdiction of his client's employer. There be interference. Mr. Agarwal in reply on merits submits, the banning order is good as made under the policy, applicable to petitioner.

7. There is no dispute that inquiry was made resulting in issuance of show cause notice and thereafter impugned speaking order dated 17th July, 2025 banning petitioner for period of two years. The only question before us is whether petitioner can be banned from participating in notices inviting tenders (NIT) of NTPC, its subsidiaries and others JVs. We understand petitioner's contention to be, the banning must or can only be in respect of MUNPL (Joint Venture between NTPC and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd) as per the banning policy itself. We have not been shown anything from the special conditions of contract nor the 4 WRIC No. 30233 of 2025 applicable policy dated 5th May, 2023 that the banning policy provides a contractor for being banned across the board in addition to the employer JV, MUNPL. In the premises, we partially strike down impugned banning order insofar as its effect of banning petitioner from participating in tenders issued by NTPC, its subsidiaries and JVs other than MUNPL.

8. The writ petition is allowed to above extent and disposed of. (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) September 16, 2025 Shivangi SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Assistant Law Officer Shri Hitesh Bhatt (Munpl) And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : Lakshmi Kant Singh : Vivek Ratan Agrawal Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. (Per Arindam Sinha, J.)

1. The writ petition is up for hearing and disposal. Dr. Vikash Kumar, learned advocate assisted by Mr. Lakshmi Kant Singh, learned advocate appear on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Vivek Ratan Agarwal, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent.

2. Upon hearing learned advocates for the parties on earlier occasions we had before us objection on maintainability of the writ petition, to be dealt with. Today Mr. Agarwal hands up order dated 12th September, 2025 made by the first Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. He submits, petitioner's writ petition for same relief stood dismissed on it having also filed before this Court. Paragraphs 7 to 9 from the order is reproduced below. " 7. From the pleadings, it is clear that the effect of the petitioner's challenge in the present writ petition is the banning order dated 17.07.2025 consequential disqualification of its bid in the GEM tender. However, it is an admitted position that the the writ petitioner has already jurisidiction of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by filing Writ-C No.30233 of 2025 seeking the very same reliefs. The said writ invoked 2 WRIC No. 30233 of 2025 petition is pending adjudication and is fixed for hearing on 12.09.2025.

8. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the present with petition is dismissed as not maintainable. " On query Dr. Kumar submits, he will proceed to argue on accepting the order having said his client had petitioned both the High Courts for same relief.

3. For pressing contention on maintainability Mr. Agarwal draws attention to his client's affidavit dated 6th September, 2025 and submits, policy for debarment from business dealings stood issued on 5th May, 2023. Per clause 2.3, it came into force from the date of its issuance. Clause 2.4 provides for applicability of the policy to, inter alia, under execution contracts not yet closed on date of implementation of the policy. Clause 2.5 extends the applicability to subsidiaries/JVs (Joint Ventures) of NTPC as well. Clauses 2.4 and 2.5 are reproduced below. "2.4 The provisions of this policy will be effective on investigations conducted or misconduct/irregularities noticed on the part of any Agency in all contracts awarded on or after the date of implementation of this policy and in the contracts under execution or contracts not yet closed, on the date of the implementation of this policy.

2.5 The provisions of this policy shall be applicable for Subsidiaries/JVs of NTPC as well. " (emphasis supplied) He submits, it follows that under definition clause 3(ii)(a) there stands named CMD (NTPC) to be the appellate authority for all cases. The writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable as there has been inquiry into facts for banning petitioner. Remedy of petitioner against impugned banning order is to file appeal before the appellate authority.

4. On the preliminary objection Dr. Kumar relies on said clause 3(ii)(a) to lay emphasis that CMD (NTPC) is mandated to be 3 WRIC No. 30233 of 2025 appellate authority. He then, refers to clause 113 under heading 'business banning policy', given in the special conditions of contract. The clause is reproduced below. " 113. Business Banning Policy is an integral part of the Tender Documents; irrespective of the fact whether it has been issued with tender documents or not. "NTPC Limited" shall be read as "Meja Urja Nigam Pvt. Ltd." wherever mentioned in the policy". (emphasis supplied) His submission is, application of the policy to his client being contractor of Meja Urja Nigam Private Limited (MUNPL) thus requires substitution of NTPC by MUNPL, wherever it appears in the policy. Coming back to clause 3(ii)(a) in policy dated 5th May, 2023 he submits, the appellate authority then becomes CMD (MUNPL). There is no such authority.

5. We accept petitioner's contention regarding maintainability of the writ petition on absence of alternative remedy.

6. Moving on Dr. Kumar takes us to impugned banning order dated 17th July, 2025. He points out from the subject that his client stands banned for period of two years across NTPC including its JVs and subsidiaries. He submits, the policy including providing for banning applicable to his client has been demonstrated to be as in respect of MUNPL. The banning order having wider scope thus is beyond jurisdiction of his client's employer. There be interference. Mr. Agarwal in reply on merits submits, the banning order is good as made under the policy, applicable to petitioner.

7. There is no dispute that inquiry was made resulting in issuance of show cause notice and thereafter impugned speaking order dated 17th July, 2025 banning petitioner for period of two years. The only question before us is whether petitioner can be banned from participating in notices inviting tenders (NIT) of NTPC, its subsidiaries and others JVs. We understand petitioner's contention to be, the banning must or can only be in respect of MUNPL (Joint Venture between NTPC and Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd) as per the banning policy itself. We have not been shown anything from the special conditions of contract nor the 4 WRIC No. 30233 of 2025 applicable policy dated 5th May, 2023 that the banning policy provides a contractor for being banned across the board in addition to the employer JV, MUNPL. In the premises, we partially strike down impugned banning order insofar as its effect of banning petitioner from participating in tenders issued by NTPC, its subsidiaries and JVs other than MUNPL.

8. The writ petition is allowed to above extent and disposed of. (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) September 16, 2025 Shivangi SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad