SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 359

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Om Narayan Rai, J.
M/s IDL Explosives Limited & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Coal India Limited & Anr. – Respondents
WPA 10536 of 2025
Decided On : 13-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.N. Mookherji, Sr. Adv., Mr. V. Gupta, Adv., Mr. Neelesh Choudhury, Adv., Mr. A. Poddar, Adv., Mr. P. Barua, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jishnu Saha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ayan Poddar, Adv., Mr. Soham Dutta, Adv., Ms. Khusboo Ruia, Adv.

Mandatory consideration of both gravity of the offense and actual loss suffered is required for imposing maximum penalties in administrative debarment.

Headnote:(A) Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India), Order 2017 - Requirement for Local Content - Local Supplier classification and its implications in bidding processes examined. (Paras 1-4, 37-41)

(B) Proportionality in penalties - Court emphasized on the need for a reasoned order detailing the gravity of the offence and resultant loss before imposing a maximum penalty of debarment. (Paras 46-55)

(C) Judicial review of administrative decisions - Imposition of penalties subject to scrutiny, particularly where principles of natural justice and proportionality are at stake. (Paras 16-18, 35-38)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged a two-year debarment imposed on the first petitioner by Coal India Limited for alleged discrepancies in Local Content Certificates during a bidding process. Prior attempts to lift the ban were unsuccessful, prompting judicial intervention.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the order improper for failing to establish the quantum of loss suffered by Coal India Limited or its subsidiaries due to the alleged violations, leading to insufficient grounds for the maximum penalty.

Issues: Whether the ban period aligns with the gravity of the offence and whether loss incurred is a prerequisite for such a penalty to be imposed.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that both gravity of the offence and quantifiable loss should be considered when deciding on the period of ban, rejecting the notion that one condition could outweigh the other.

Result: The order dated May 02, 2025, was set aside, and the matter remitted to the Chairman, Coal India Limited for reconsideration of the ban period.

Table of Content
1. overview of tender process and debarment (Para 2)
2. petitioners challenge ban period as excessive (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. impact of ban on petitioners' business opportunities (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court's previous orders shape decision-making (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. respondents' view on gravity of offence (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
6. proportionality as a key consideration (Para 35 , 36 , 37)
7. court remands matter for reconsideration (Para 61 , 62)

JUDGMENT :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. The petitioners, three in number, are aggrieved by the debarment of the petitioner no. 1 from contracting with Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries. The petitioners’ request to the respondents to review the two years’ ban imposed on the petitioner no. 1 has been spurned by an order dated May 02, 2025 passed by the Chairman, Coal India Limited and hence the writ petition.

FACTS:

2. Shorn of minute details, the salient facts of the case, as may be gathered from the pleadings of the parties (i.e. the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent), are as follows:-

a) On July 23, 2021 a “Notice Inviting Tender cum e-Reverse Auction Open Domestic Tender” (hereafter “NIT”) was published by the respondent no. 1 for running contracts and empanelment as reserve running contract holders for a period of two years from the date of issuance of running contract for supply of bulk explosives to all the subsidiary companies of the respondent no. 1.

b) The NIT prescribed certain terms and conditions that were required to be fulfilled by bidders in order to be eligible for the contract. One of the primary conditions in the NIT was that preference would be given to eligible bidders as per the Procurement Public (Preference to Make in India), Order 2017 of the Government of India. In terms thereof “Local Suppliers” were to be preferred over Non-Local suppliers. There was a further sub-division of the category of Local Suppliers as well into Class-I and Class-II Local Suppliers.

c) The NIT defined “Class-I Local Supplier”, “Class-II Local Supplier”, “Non-Local Supplier” and “Local Content” in the following manner:-

“a. 'Class-I Local Supplier' means a supplier, whose goods and/or services offered for procurement, has local content equal to or more than 50%.

b. 'Class-II Local Supplier' means a supplier, whose goods and/or services, offered for procurement, has 20% or more local content but less than 50%.

c. 'Non–Local Supplier' means a supplier, whose goods and/or services, offered for procurement, has local content less than 20%.

d. 'Local Content' means the amount of value added in India which shall be the total value of the item procured (excluding net domestic indirect taxes) minus the value of imported content in the item (including all customs duties) as a proportion of the total value, in percent.”

d) The petitioner no. 1 participated in the tender process and ultimately, on October 08, 2021 the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 entered into a running contract and a reserve running contract for supply of bulk explosives for a period of two years effective from October 10, 2021. Such contract was to remain valid till October 09, 2023.

e) While the petitioner no. 1 was executing the earlier contract, on March 04, 2023 the respondent no. 1 published another NIT for conclusion of running contracts and empanelment as reserve running contract holders for a period of two years for supply of cartridge explosives to all the subsidiaries companies of the respondent no. 1.

f) The petitioner no. 1 participated in the said tender process also and ultimately on May 31, 2023 the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no. 1 entered into a running contract and reserve running contract for supply of cartridges explosive for a period of two years.

g) On August 25, 2023, the respondent no. 1 wrote a letter to the petitioner no. 1 informing that a complaint had been received by the Hon’ble Minister for Coal, Mines

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top