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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 16495

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
M/S PEARL INDIA MARKETING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC/2310/2026



2026:CGHC:21565-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2310 of 2026 M/s Pearl India Marketing Services Private Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory/representative, Having Its Office At Plot No. F-281, Behind Gumber Petrol Pump, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, 495001 ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh-

492002

2 - Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency (Creda)

Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Creda, Vip Road, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492006

3 - Superintendent Engineer Re-1, Creda, Vip Road, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492006

4 - Executive Engineer Re-V, Creda, Vip Road, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492006 ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Harsh Dave, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Ms. Akriti Singh, Advocate (through virtual Digitally signed mode)

by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.12 Hon'ble Shr i Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

08/05/2026

1.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents.

2.

The present writ petition has been filed calling in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned blacklisting order dated 20.04.2026 bearing No. 562/आर.ई.-05/पी(cid:5)एम-जन्मन/2026-27 issued by respondent-CREDA, whereby the petitioner-company has been blacklisted “आगा(cid:12)म(cid:5) आदे(cid:14)श तक”, i.e., until further orders. Challenge has also been made to the connected order dated 20.04.2026 bearing No. 563/आर.ई.-05/पी(cid:5)एम-जन्मन/2026-27, whereby the work order relating to 753 unstarted Solar Home Light Systems out of total 1490 systems has been cancelled.

3.

The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for the following reliefs:

“A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned blacklisting order dated 20.04.2026, bearing No. 562/आर.ई.-05/पी(cid:5)एम- जन्म/2026-27, issued by Respondent-CREDA, whereby the Petitioner has again been blacklisted “आगा(cid:12)म(cid:5) आदे(cid:14)श तक”;

B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the connected work-

order cancellation order dated 20.04.2026, bearing No. 563/आर.ई.-05/पी(cid:5)एम-जन्म/2026-27, whereby CREDA has cancelled the work order in respect of 753 unstarted Solar Home Light Systems;

C. Hold that the impugned blacklisting order dated 20.04.2026, being indefinite, open-ended, non-speaking and disproportionate, is arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPC No. 2677/2025;

D. Call for the entire records relating to issuance of the impugned orders dated 20.04.2026, including the approval note-sheets, decision- making file, alleged show-cause material, consideration of the Petitioner’s reply, and approval of the competent authority;

E. Grant any other relief/order/direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

4.

Brief facts of the case are that respondent-CREDA had floated Tender No.155945 dated 10.07.2024 for design, supply, installation and commissioning of Solar Home Lighting Systems under the PM- JANMAN Scheme. The petitioner participated in the tender process and was declared successful bidder. Thereafter, work orders were issued in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the tender conditions, the petitioner submitted sample systems along with NABL-accredited laboratory reports, which were duly s

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top