2026:CGHC:19543-DB Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date:

2026.04.30 NAFR

10:49:06 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1785 of 2026 M/s Ascent Technology Solution Through- Sole Proprietor, Anand Suhane, S/o Shri G.D. Suhane, Aged About 45 Years, Office Address- 433, Beside Anchal Nursing Home, Mahaveer Nagar Ring Road No. 1 Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation Through Managing Director, Head Office, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Through Managing Director, First Floor, Udhyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 01, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

:

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate along with Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Syed Jayed Ziya Ali, along with Mr.

Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

28/04/2026

1. Heard Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate along with Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate and Mr. Syed Jayed Ziya Ali, along with Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate for the respective Respondents.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief(s):

“"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order No. 14300/CGWC/Tec/2025 Nawa Raipur, dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 1/Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation wherein the Security Deposit has been forfeited and further the petitioner firm has been blacklisted for a period of five years as being without any authority of law and even without adhering to the principles of natural justice and equity.

10.2 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted, in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner, who is a sole proprietorship firm represented through its proprietor, calls in question the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 26.11.2025, whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted for five years by the respondent authorities and its security deposit has also been forfeited. The record reflects that pursuant to NIT No. 74 dated 10.10.2022 issued by the respondent No.2/CSIDC for the supply and installation of CCTV Surveillance Systems at various centres of the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation across the State, the petitioner was awarded the contract under the CSIDC rate contract. In furtherance thereof, supply orders dated 08.10.2023 and 10.10.2023 were issued, stipulating completion of work within a period of 45 days. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the entire work of supply and installation was completed within the stipulated time frame in accordance with the contractual terms and conditions, without any delay or deficiency attributable to the petitioner.

3. It further appears that after completion of installation, the respondent authorities issued various notices dated 17.05.2024, 29.11.2024 and 22.01.2025 directing the petitioner to carry out repair and maintenance work of the installed CCTV systems at different centres. The petitioner contends that it duly complied with all such directions and undertook necessary repair, replacement and maintenance work promptly, including installation of new cameras at locations where the earlier units were found missing, despite such circumstances being beyond the petitioner’s control.

4. However, the respondent No.1, without issuing any specific show cause notice proposing blacklisting or forfeiture of security deposit and without affording any opportunity of hearing, proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 26.11.2025, blacklisting the petitioner