IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 29839 of 2025

Debopriyo Deb Roy

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Aritra Basu

Mr. Ritoban Sarkar

Mr. Tanmoy Sett

Mr. Pran Gopal Das

....For the petitioner.

Mr. Subrata Roy

Mr. Pralay Bhattacharjee

….For the Union of India.

Hearing Concluded On : 25.06.2026

For Clarification On : 13.07.2026

Judgment Delivered On : 23.07.2026

Judgment Uploaded On : 23.07.2026

2

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the show

cause notice dated 28

th October, 2021, wherein the petitioner is

directed to show cause as to why the firm of the petitioner shall not be

removed from the approved list of contractors and communication

dated 15

th December, 2025.

2. The petitioner was an enlisted contractor with the respondent

authorities for the period from 1

st

January, 2016 to 31

st

December,

2020, under Class “B” with index No. B-11. The petitioner by a

representation dated 29

th

September, 2020, made a request for renewal

of his enlistment from the circle period of 2021 to 2025.

3. The respondent authorities have issued show cause notice to the

petitioner on 28

th October, 2021, calling upon the petitioner to show

cause as to why the name of the petitioner shall not be removed from

the approved list of contractors as the petitioner is not fulfilling the

criteria for renewal for the next cycle period of 2021-2025. The

petitioner has submitted a detailed reply to the respondents on 29

th

November, 2021. Inspite of receipt of reply from the petitioner, the

respondents have not taken any steps and on 25

th

July, 2022, the

petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. No

order is passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner.

4. On 20

th November, 2025, the petitioner again made a request to the

respondent authorities for renewal of his enlistment from January,

3

2026. On 15

th December, 2025, the respondent authorities sent a

detailed reply to the petitioner and refused to renew the enlistment of

the petitioner for the cycle period from January, 2026. In the said

communication, it was informed to the petitioner that recovery of an

amount of Rs. 52,120/- is due from the petitioner as per letter dated

11

th May, 2023 and as per record, an amount of Rs. 38,53,541/- is

outstanding against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted reply

to the said refusal on 19

th

December, 2025.

5. Mr. Aritra Basu, Learned Advocate, representing the petitioner submits

that with regard to CA No. CE(AF) SZ/KUM/15 of 2015-16 for provision

of parking area and pavement along with lightning facilities at AFS

Kumbhigram, the authorities have illegally cancelled the said tender by

the Shillong Zone on 23

rd September, 2022, with effect from 30

th

September, 2022 and claimed Rs. 44,46,442/-. The petitioner has

issued a notice to the authorities for appointment of Arbitrator on 20

th

December, 2024, making certain claims and also proposed three names

to be appointed as an arbitrator but no arbitrator was appointed.

6. Mr. Basu submits that with regard to recovery of Rs. 52,128/-, the

concern work order was issued in the year 2004 and was duly

completed in 2004 but after a lapse of 20 years, the respondent

authorities have raised claim of the said amount.

7. Mr. Basu submits that as regard to the claim of Rs. 38,53,541/-, the

same was adjudicated by the Learned Arbitrator and as per the Award

4

dated 25

th November, 2024, the said claim has been settled and no

adverse consequence survived against the petitioner. He submits that

during the period 2015 to 2020, the petitioner has completed the works

and an amount of Rs. 1,81,23,173/ - is remain due and payable by the

respondents to the petitioner.

8. Mr. Basu submits that during the pendency of the present writ petition,

by a letter dated 13

th

January, 2026, the respondent no.3 informed the

petitioner that the name of the petitioner is removed from the approved

list of the contractors by a letter dated 4

th

June, 2022. He submits that

the respondents have ignored the facts that with respect to CA No.

CCE/NAR/DIN-01 of 2015-16, an Award has been passed by the

Learned Sole Arbitrator in favour of the petitioner and the respondents

have not challenged the said Award.

9. Mr. Basu submits that the letter dated 4

th June, 2022, was never

served upon the petitioner. He submits that the respondents cannot

remove the name of the petitioner from the approved list of contractors

of the respondents for indefinite period. In support of his case, he has

relied upon the judgment in the case of Vetindia Pharmaceuticals

Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2021)

1 SCC 804 and submits that an order of black listing beyond 3 years

or maximum of 5 years was disproportionate.

10. Mr. Basu has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Kulja

Industries Limited Vs. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom

5

Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Others reported in

(2014) 14 SCC 731 and submits that the debarment is never

permanent and the period of debarment would invariably depend upon

nature of the offence committed by the erring contractor.

11. Mr. Basu has relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s. Erusian

Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and

Another reported in (1975) 1 SCC 70 and submits that fundamentals

of fair play require that the person concern should be given an

opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.

12. Mr. Basu has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Lt.

Governor, Delhi and Others Vs. HC Narinder Singh reported in

(2004) 13 SCC 342 and submits that second penalty based on the

same cause of action would amount to double jeopardy.

13. Mr. Subrata Roy, Learned Advocate, representing the respondent

authorities submits that by a letter dated 28

th October, 2021, a show

case notice was issued to the petitioner, as the firm falls under Para

7(a) of Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch letter dated 24

th

April, 2020, calling

upon the petitioner as to why his name shall not be removed from the

approved list of contractors as the petitioner not full filling the criteria

for renewal of his enlistment for the next cyclic period of 2021 to 2025.

14. Mr. Roy submits that the petitioner has not submitted any show cause

reply and accordingly the renewal of the firm has not been considered.

He submits that the term “removal” has been used in the letter dated

6

4

th June, 2022, but the said letter is to be read in conjunction with

Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch letter dated 24

th April, 2020, which clearly

specifies that if the firm falls under para 7, renewal of the firm shall not

be carried out for the next cycle period i.e. 2021-2025.

15. Mr. Roy submits that no specific time period is applicable to Head

Quarter, CEEC letter dated 4

th

June, 2022 and the petitioner can apply

for renewal/ fresh enlistment provided the petitioner satisfied all the

criteria of renewal / fresh enlistment.

16. Mr. Roy submits that the petitioner is relying upon the Award passed

by the Learned Sole Arbitrator but the Learned Sole Arbitrator has

opined that there is no illegality or irregularity in cancelling the

contract by the respondents. He submits that the cancellation of the

contract has not been declared invalid or illegal by the Learned

Arbitrator.

17. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the

materials on record and the judgments relied by the petitioner. The

petitioner was the enlisted contractor of the respondent authorities. On

29

th

September, 2020, the petitioner has applied for renewal of his

enlistment from the year 2021 to 2025. On 28

th

October, 2021, the

respondents have issued show cause notice to the petitioner on the

allegation that the work order issued to the petitioner by the ADG (NEI)

Guwahati in the month of June, 2021, was cancelled, therefore,

renewal of the enlistment falls under para 7 of the Engineer-in-Chief’s

7

Branch letter dated 24

th April, 2020 and directed to show cause as to

why the name of the petitioner is not removed from the approved list of

contractors as the petitioner was not fulfilling the criteria for renewal of

his enlistment for the next circle i.e. 2021-2025. The petitioner has

submitted his reply to the show cause notice which is appearing at

page 30 being Annexure “P/5” of the writ petition but the respondents

are denying with respect to any reply submitted by the petitioner. The

petitioner has relied upon the Award passed by the Learned Sole

Arbitrator dated 25

th

November, 2024, wherein the Learned Arbitrator

has partly awarded the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.

22,84,010/- with interest at the rate of 2% higher than the prevailing

rate of interest.

18. Enlistment of the petitioner was not renewed for the period from 2021

to 2025, the petitioner has made another request to the respondent

authorities on 20

th November, 2025, for renewal of the enlistment of the

petitioner for the period from 2026 onwards but by a communication

dated 15

th December, 2025, the respondent authorities informed the

petitioner that the work order being CA No. CE(AF)SZ/KUM/15 of

2015-16 was cancelled on 23

rd

September, 2022, in which an amount

of Rs.44,46,442/- is due against the petitioner. In the said

communication, it was further informed to the petitioner that claim of

Rs. 52,120/- and Rs. 38,53,541/- are also outstanding dues against

the petitioner.

8

19. The show cause notice dated 28

th October, 2021, issued on the

allegation that ADG (NEI) Guwahati, has issued WLR for the Qtr.

Ending June 2021 by a letter dated 15

th September, 2021, wherein it

was informed that the contract awarded to the petitioner was cancelled.

After issuance of the said show cause notice, the respondents have not

taken any action. From the communication dated 13

th January, 2026,

the petitioner came to know that the respondents have removed the

name of the petitioner from the approved list of contractors by a letter

dated 4

th

June, 2022. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the

said communication was not served to the petitioner and the

respondents have also not produced any record to show that the letter

dated 4

th

June, 2022, was served upon the petitioner.

20. The respondents have relied upon Para 7 (a) of the Engineer-in-Chief’s

Letter dated 24

th April, 2020, on the basis of which renewal of the

enlistment of the petitioner was not considered which reads as follows:

“Criteria for Renewal

7. All contractors who apply for renewal will

be re-enlisted in the same Class/categories of

enlistment. Renewal of enlistment of all contractors

who submit required documents and fulfill the

criteria of renewal shall be carried out except those

falling under the following categories. Renewal of

enlistment of such contractors shall be carried out

only after obtaining approval of this HQ:-

(a) Contractors whose contracts have been

cancelled and unrealized recoveries exist thereto

and cases, where cancellation of contract has

been declared invalid/ illegal in arbitration/court

of law.

9

(b) Contractors in whose completed works

during last five years, serious defects were

noticed which are substantially attributed to

the performance of Contractors, established

through Court of Inquiry or Tech Boards of

Officers and disciplinary action is pending/

initiated.

(c) Contractors who could not secure any

work in the last five years ending last date of

receipt of application for renewal (refer Para 6

(a)) either in MES/DG MAP or any Govt

Dept/Public Sector undertaking/AWHO/

ANWHO/DGsNP/CGEWHO or in case they

could not secure any works, they have not

participated in tendering in MES or have

participated in tendering but have not been in

first three lowest quotations.

(d) Contractors who are habitual litigants.

(e) Contractors not found fir for renewal

for reasons other than (a) to (d) above, ie

unethical conduct.

(f) Contractors who are already removed

on account of any default on their part, or

debarred, but period of debarment is not yet

over. Contractors against whom the

debarment would be over after the stipulated

date(s), the stipulated date(s) would be

deemed to be extended accordingly.

(g) Any case of unusual nature shall be

referred to this HQ well within time for

advice/ clearance.

[Notes: Regarding (a) to (e) above, action shall to

be taken to obtain the explanation of the

contractor(s) by serving notice to him bringing out

the issue as applicable and allowing four weeks’

time to furnish replies. The issue shall be

decided taking into account the replies of the

contractor(s) and after referring the complete

case to this HQ. In respect of (d) above, a

contractor will be considered a habitual litigant if

he moves the Court more than once ignoring

arbitration clause and the Court does not upload

his view.]”

10

21. The petitioner has relied upon the Award passed by the Learned

Arbitrator dated 25

th November, 2024. In the said Award, a specific

issue is decided “Whether the termination of the contract vide order

dated 31

st July, 2020, is legally valid and justified or not?” While

deciding the said issue, the Learned Arbitrator held that “In view of the

above discussions, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no illegality

or irregularity in cancelling the contract by the respondent and as such

the said issue answered in negative and in favour of the respondent.”

22. The Learned Arbitrator has decided the issue in negative but has

passed an Award directing the respondents for payment of the amount

of Rs. 22,84,010/- along with interest. The respondents raised counter

claim against the petitioner in the arbitration proceedings. The Learned

Arbitrator decided four counter claims of the respondents in the said

award by rejecting all counter claims of the respondents, which reads

as follows:

“COUNTER CLAIM NO.1 :

19. In para 53 of the Statement of Defence the

respondent has asserted that as per Special

Conditions of Contract, as indicated in Appx. 'E' (R-

24), the qualification for deployment of Engineer

has been prescribed wherein the qualification for

Resident Engineer is BE/ B.Tech (Civil) with 15

years experience; Project Engineer is BE/B.Tech

(Civil) with 10 years experience or Diploma in Civil

Engineering with 15 years experience and for Site

Supervisor - Civil Engineering or Electrical

Engineering. The respondent has raised a counter

claim amounting to Rs.2,16,68,000/- as per Clause

67(a) of IAFE-2249 on the ground that no

experience certificate has been produced by the

claimant in respect of the aforesaid employees.

There is no adequate pleading from the

11

respondent's side in this respect. Further, the

scrutiny for experience certificate is to be done at

initial stage by the respondent, but that has not

been done nor the respondent asked for such

certificate. Even if there is any violation, the

respondent has waived it allowing the concerned

workers to continue. The respondent has failed to

substantiate this claim for recovery in terms of

Clause 67(F) of IAFW-2249. Hence, this counter

claim stands rejected.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.2 :

20. In para 54 the respondent has pleaded

that the department's claim for the expenditure

incurred in execution of the balance work left by

the claimant, which was done under risk and cost

of the contractor due to non-completion of the work,

with effect from September 2020 to June 2022 i.e.

for 22 months. But in support of this counter claim

the respondent has not produced any document of

payment to the respective officer/employees as

well as amount spent in other respect as mentioned

in the said paragraph. The claimant has denied the

claim. There is no adequate pleading and evidence

in this respect from the respondent. The respondent

has failed to prove their claim with reliable and

sufficient materials

In view of the above fact situation this counter

claim stands rejected.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.3 :

21. In para 55 of the Statement of Defence,

the respondent has made a counter claim of

Rs.7,00,000/- for non-providing of Site Lab as per

Clause 33 of the Contract and Rs.5,75,000/-, for

not providing furnished site office as per Clause

34(E) of the Contract Agreement (as amended).

In this counter claim the respondent has not

furnished the adequate and relevant materials to

come to a finding as prayed for. Further, the

respondent has also not indicated the provisions in

the contract agreement for recovery of such amount

for failure of the claimant. There is no adequate

pleading in support of the claim. The respondent

12

allowed the claimant to continue with the work in

spite absence of such requirement.

In view of the above discussions, this counter

claim stands rejected.

COUNTER CLAIM NO.4 :

22. At para-56 of the Statement of Defence the

respondent has prayed for an amount of

Rs.25,00,000/- on the ground that due to non-

completion of the work in time for the fault of the

claimant related tender for furniture was not

completed by the respondent as the procedure was

in vogue and the cost of furniture tendered has

been escalated and as such the respondent has

prayed for recovery of the same from the claimant.

Further, an amount of Rs.7,50,00,000/- has been

claimed by the respondent for defamation of the

respondent organization due to non-completion of

the project in time. Apart from making this bald

statement in the Statement of Defence, no other

materials have been produced by the respondent.

The claim for Rs.25,00,000/- on account of

escalation of furniture cost is remote one. Further,

the respondent has not made any whisper as to

how and in what manner they have been defamed

due to non-execution of the work in time. The

respondent has not been able to substantiate this

counter claim and accordingly this claim stands

rejected.”

23. In the month of November, 2025, the petitioner has further requested

for renewal of its enlistment and in reply to the same, the respondents

have informed the petitioner about several pending dues against the

petitioner by a communication dated 15

th

December, 2025. The

petitioner has submitted detailed reply to the respondents on 19

th

December, 2025. In the said reply, the petitioner has taken the stand

that with regard to the provision of parking area and pavement in

connection with CA No. CE(AF)/SZ/KUM/15 of 2015-16, the petitioner

13

has already issued notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 but no Arbitrator is appointed. With regard to

the recovery of Rs. 52,128/-, the alleged claim is in connection with the

work order of 2004 and the petitioner has completed the work in the

year 2004 and lapse of about 20 years, the respondents have raised the

alleged claim. As regard to the claim of Rs. 38,53,541/-, the said claim

was the subject-matter of arbitration proceeding and an Award was

passed on 25

th

November, 2024 and no Award was passed with respect

to the said amount in favour of the respondents, thus the respondents

cannot claim any further amount from the petitioner.

24. In the show cause notice, the respondents have relied upon one

cancellation order and subsequently, the respondents have raised

further claims. The petitioner has submitted reply to the said claims

but in the impugned order dated 13

th June, 2026, the authorities have

only relied upon para 7(a) of the Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch Letter

dated 24

th April, 2020, but have not considered the details submitted

by the petitioner.

25. As per Clause 1.14(d) of the Enlistment of Contractors, Standing

Security Deposit, upgrading, removal and down grading of the

contractors provides that “the contractors whose contracts have been

cancelled and unrealized recoveries exist thereto, cases, where

cancellation of contract has been declared invalid/illegal in

arbitration/court of law, shall be decided after obtaining approval of E-in-

C Branch.”

14

26. The respondents have issued show cause notice only on the basis of

cancellation of work order but in the impugned order of removal dated

4

th June, 2022, the respondents have taken further ground that the

petitioner has not submitted complete requisite documents for renewal.

The petitioner could not get an opportunity of hearing with regard to

the non-submission of complete documents for renewal. Thus, the

impugned order dated 4

th

June, 2022, is set aside and quashed.

27. Considering the above, the Engineer-in-Chief, the respondent no. 2 is

directed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 19

th

December, 2025 and if necessary, an opportunity of personal hearing

be given to the petitioner and pass reasoned and speaking order within

a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and to

communicate the same to the petitioner within a week thereafter.

28. WPA No. 29839 of 2025 is disposed of.

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)

15