A writ petition cannot be maintained if parallel proceedings on the same cause of action are already pending, affirming the principle against jurisdictional overlap.

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

12.09.2025

1. Heard Dr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. Also heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ(s), Order(s), or Direction(s), thereby directing the respondent No. 1 to allow and consider the Petitioner’s BID for Technical evaluation and opening of the Price BID in the ongoing bidding process under GeM Bid No.

GEM/2025/B/6319184.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to pass an Order quashing and setting aside the Banning Order dated 17.07.2025 issued by respondents No. 2 and 3, as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.

10.3 That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing respondent No. 4 to award the subject contract in favour of the petitioner, in the event the petitioner is found to be the Lowest (L-1) Bidder in GEM BID No. GEM/2025/B/6319184, upon removal of the impugned disqualification and in accordance with law.

10. 4 To kindly grant any other relief(s) which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a registered MSME sole proprietorship firm, has instituted the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the banning order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Respondents No. 2 and 3, and the consequential disqualification/exclusion of its bid in GEM Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6319184 for the Bi-Annual Electrical Maintenance Contract at Anta Gas Power Station (AnGPS).

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the banning order has been passed mechanically, without due application of mind, in a non-speaking manner, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, despite the petitioner having furnished a detailed reply to the show-cause notice. It is urged that the respondent No. 1, being a separate and distinct legal entity, acted upon the said banning order without any independent consideration, thereby arbitrarily disqualifying the petitioner’s bid. It is further submitted that the petitioner is already executing a similar work at AnGPS to the full satisfaction of the Engineer-in-Charge under an existing purchase order, and yet its bid has been excluded from technical evaluation, even though the petitioner appears to be the lowest bidder (L-1). The petitioner claims violation of its fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and seeks quashing of the banning order as well as directions for consideration of its bid.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition. He submits that the petitioner has already filed writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 30233 of 2025 before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, challenging the very same banning order and seeking identical reliefs. It is pointed out that the said writ petition has been entertained by the Hon’ble High Court and an order dated 09.09.2025 has been passed, with the matter now listed on 12.09.2025. It is, therefore, contended that the present writ petition amounts to parallel proceedings on the same cause of action, which cannot be permitted in law.

6. We have ca