JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application challenging the orders dated December 15, 2025, December 17, 2025 and December 30, 2025 wherein the respondents have suspended the petitioners for participating in any future tenders of Durgapur Steel Plant for a period of six months or until further notice due to the violation of the terms and conditions of the tender. The Steel Authority of India has issued a tender notice for supplying of silicomanganese. The petitioners have participated in the said tender. Along with the petitioners another firm namely, M/s. Gajanan Ferro Private Limited has also participated in the said tender. On verification of the tender documents, the Steel Authority of India issued a notice on November 25, 2025 requesting the petitioners for urgent clarifications regarding the tender in response to RFQ. The Steel Authority of India requested the petitioners to explain within November 27, 2025 along with the contentions of the petitioners why the tender shall not be rejected and appropriate action shall not be taken against the petitioners for gross violation of the tender terms. In the said notice, it was informed to the petitioners that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Clauses 24, 37, 37(b)(i), Section 2.0(b) and Section 3 of the Integrity Impact.

2. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioners have submitted a reply on November 27, 2025 stating that on receipt of the information from the respondents, the petitioners came to know that inadvertently the petitioners missed the Clause 24.0 of the Code of Integrity in the General Terms and Conditions of contract. In the said letter the petitioners have also requested the Steel Authority of India not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners and allowed the petitioners to continue participating in the tender process. As the respondents find that the petitioners have violated the terms and conditions of the tender document and accordingly the respondents disqualified the petitioners for participating in the said tender and subsequently, issued the impugned order of suspension.

3. The petitioners have filed supplementary affidavit disclosing further suspension orders issued by other branches of Steel Authority of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of suspension has been issued to the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing. Petitioners submit that no show cause notice have been issued and it was also not informed to the petitioners whether there is any investigation is pending or not.

5. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners draws attention of this Court to Clause 5 of the guidelines on banning of business dealings and submits that as per Clause 5.1 the suspension order can be issued only if any investigation has been started by the department and if the competent authority considered that after the recommendation of the investigating department, the order of suspension of business dealing with agency can be issued. He submitted that in the present case no show cause notice has been issued and it was not informed to the petitioners that any investigation is pending.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further draws the attention of this Court to Clauses 5.6 and 5.7 of the guidelines and submits that as per the Clause 5.7 of the guidelines it is mentioned that it is not necessary to give any show cause notice of personal hearing to the agency before issuance of the order of suspension. He submits that Clause 5.1 stipulates certain tests as preconditions for issuance of suspension order. Firstly, there has to be a pending investigation on allegations of a serious nature, secondly, there has to be a recommendation of the investigation department which can be a vigilance officer and thirdly, the order of suspension may indicate a brief of the charges under investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied u