M/S Ganesh Prasad Singh vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 12 February, 2026

Author: Manish Choudhury

Bench: Manish Choudhury

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010024252026

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/687/2026

M/S GANESH PRASAD SINGH
(A PARTNERSHIP FIRM) REGISTERED OFFICE AT 38/147, SRI HARI NIWAS,
BEHIND NARAYANI TOWER, HEMU NAGAR, BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH -
495004, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/ PERSON SHRI
DIBYO JYOTI TALUKDAR, SON OF SRI NAGEN CHANDRA TALUKDAR,
RANGIA STATION ROAD, WARD NO. 1, RANGIA, P.O. AND P.S. RANGIA,
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781354.

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

2:THE NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI
ASSAM- 781011
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER
NFR
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI - 781011.

4:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
RANGIYA DIVISION
RANGIA
ASSAM - 781354.

5:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
NFR
Page No.# 2/5

RANGIYA DIVISION
RANGIA
ASSAM - 781354.

6:THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER
NFR
RANGIYA DIVISION
RANGIA
ASSAM 781354

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B PATHAK, MR V JAMMAR,MR. P TELI

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY(CGC,R-ALL)

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

ORDER

12.02.2026

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail a Termination Notice dated 21.01.2026 [Annexure-T] and a GeM Bid dated 18.12.2025 [Annexure-O]. By the Termination Notice dated 21.01.2026, the petitioner has been debarred from participation in any bidding process for executing any work being tendered by the Rangiya Division of Northeast Frontier Railway for a period of two years w.e.f. 21.01.2026. By the GeM Bid Notice dated 18.12.2025, the respondent Railway authorities have invited bids for the service, 'Manpower Based Mechanised Cleaning Contract of Rangiya Railway Station' for a period of 2 [two] years 6 [six] months.

3. Earlier, by a GeM Bid Notice dated 07.03.2025, bids were invited extending the same service, 'Manpower Based Mechanised Cleaning Contract of Rangiya Railway Station' ['the Contract-Work', for short] for a period of 3 [three] years. Finding itself eligible, the petitioner Page No.# 3/5

submitted his bid. Upon evaluation of the bids submitted by the participant bidders, the petitioner was declared as the successful bidder and by a Work Order dated 20.06.2025, the petitioner was awarded the contract for a period of three years. After depositing performance guarantee and completing other formalities, the petitioner started executing the contract work. After serving notices on 30.06.2025, 09.07.2025, 18.07.2025, 31.07.2025 and 15.09.2025, the petitioner was served with a notice alleging deficiency in performance on 10.11.2025. The Performance Notice dated 10.11.2025 under Clause 7.4 of the General Conditions of Contract was followed by another Notice dated 01.12.2025 under Clause 7.4 of General Conditions of Contract. Finally on 21.01.2026, the impugned Termination Notice has been issued debarring the petitioner from participation for a period of two years.

4. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that prior to the Termination Notice, the respondent authorities had already floated the GeM Bid Notice on 18.12.2025 for the same service and the same goes to establish that the respondent authorities were pre-determined for taking the drastic action of terminating the Contract-Work with the petitioner, which was for a period of three years. Pointing to the notices issued earlier to the Performance Notice dated 10.11.2025, it is canvassed that the alleged deficiency were with regard to non-submission of police verification certificates in respect of the staff employed by the petitioner, non-issuance of identity cards to the staff and not extending locker facilities to them. He has further submitted that in so far as the allegation regarding police verification is concerned, the respondent no. 4 had himself indicated that the petitioner had applied for police verification certificates but the same were not received. Mr. Pathak has further submitted that the petitioner immediately applied for police verification certificates for its staff but the matter of issuance of police verification certificate was not within the control of the petitioner and was in the domain of Police. In so far as the locker facility is concerned, a small vacant ATM room was made available to the petitioner to install the lockers. In a small vacant ATM room, installation of large nos. of lockers was not possible. In so far as the allegation regarding issuance of identity cards, the same had been complied with in the meantime and therefore, there was no mention about the identity card in the subsequent notices. Other than the said complaints, there were no specific complaints either in the Performance Notice dated 10.11.2025 or in Termination Notice dated 21.01.2026. As Page No.# 4/5

the said notices are vague and ambiguous, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to submit an effective reply to the show cause notice and the principles of natural justice was not adhered to.

5. Mr. Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondent authorities has submitted that the petitioner was found to have failed consistently to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Contract Agreement. As Rangiya Railway Station has huge tootfalls, keeping the Railway Station clean is of utmost importance. As there was failure on the part of the petitioner, the action to penalise was necessary. Prior to Termination Notice dated 21.01.2026, sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner.

6. The matter would require consideration.

7. Issue notice, returnable on 16.03.2026.

8. As Mr. Roy, learned CGC has appeared and accepted notices on behalf of all the respondents, issuance of formal notice to the respondents is dispensed with. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner shall furnish requisite nos. of extra copies of the writ petition along with the annexures to Mr. Roy by tomorrow.

9. The learned counsel for the parties are also heard on the interim prayer.

10. It is brought to the notice that on 05.01.2026, that is, prior to Termination Notice dated 21.01.2026, a Notice for Quotation was published inviting quotations for carrying out the mechanized cleaning work at Rangiya Railway Station, and the work has already been entrusted to a third party for a period for 2 [two] months. Subsequently on 21.01.2026, the Final Termination Notice has been issued. On 18.12.2025, GeM Bid Notice was published and on 05.01.2026, Notice for Quotation for the same work for a period of two months were already published, the Contract Agreement with the petitioner for the similar work was in currency and not terminated. Such actions on the part of the respondent authorities is suggestive of a pre-determined mind for taking the action of debarment, which has serious Page No.# 5/5

civil consequences.

11. In such fact situation obtaining in the case, this Court is of the prima facie view that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for interim relief. It is therefore ordered, in the interim and to balance the equities, that the respondent authorities shall not finalize the bidding process initiated by the GeM Bid dated 18.12.2025 till the returnable date. If the process subsequent to Notice for Quotation dated 05.01.2026 has been finalized and the period of two months has not expired as on date, then such arrangement shall be continued till the expiry of two months.

12. List the case on 16.03.2026.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant