M/S Sudarshan Facilities Pvt Ltd v. Pgimer Post Graduate Institute Of Medical Education Research,Chandigarh And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9988-2026 M/s Sudarshan Facilities Pvt. Ltd.
.....Petitioner
Versus
PGIMER (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh) and others .....Respondents 1.
The date when the judgment is reserved 13.05.2026 2.
The date when the judgment is pronounced 22.05.2026 3.
The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 23.05.2026 4.
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced Full 5.
The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof Not applicable CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:
Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, Advocate and Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Sukhmani Tiwana Patwalia, Advocate for the respondents. DEEPAK SIBAL, J.
1.
Through this petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 12.07.2025 through which the petitioner has been debarred by the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short - the Institute) from participating in any procurement process for a period of two years.
2.
The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that in the year 2016 the Institute invited bids for providing security services for two years at the Institute. The petitioner's bid being the lowest was accepted and
accordingly, through letter of acceptance dated 15.06.2017 the petitioner was awarded the aforesaid work. The contract period commenced from 01.07.2017 and was till 30.06.2019 but the same was further extended upto 31.07.2020. On the conclusion of the contract period the Institute issued a completion certificate dated 06.03.2020 classifying the petitioner's services to be satisfactory.
3.
After over 04 years thereafter a show cause notice dated 27.05.2024 was served upon the petitioner putting the petitioner to notice that while providing security services to the Institute the petitioner had not deposited the applicable Goods and Services Tax which was in violation of clause 12(k) of the contract as per which the service provider was to ensure full compliance with the tax laws of India and was solely responsible for the same. As per the said clause the service provider was required to submit copies of acknowledgements evidencing filing of returns every year and to keep the Institute fully indemnified against liability of any tax, interest, penalty etc. which may arise.
As per the show cause notice since the petitioner had not deposited the applicable GST for the period that it provided services to the Institute it had violated clause 12(k) of the contract and therefore was afforded seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice to explain as to why in terms of Rule 151 of the General Financial Rules 2017 (for short - 2017 Rules) action be not taken against the petitioner for its debarment from participating in any process undertaken by the Institute. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice which was apparently not found satisfactory because through order dated 12.07.
Institute for a period of two years which order is the subject matter of the challenge through the instant petition.
4.
5.
Both the show cause notice dated 27.05.2024 issued by the Institute and the reply dated 10.06.2024 submitted thereto by the petitioner (without its enclosures) are reproduced for ready reference:- Show Cause Notice dated 27.05.2024
!
"#$%&'%()$ $&%&%(* + ,
- . / + 0 %"1-%- 2,,/ -( 3 '45/)/ - 6
$ ,
-
,- (
$ 0,$ '
- , )- 6
.- - / '6)
,
,
7& '6)8
, .
, 8 ,
6 ,
6,
,
.- -
- , / - !
"#$%&$ $%&%(
-
#8 ( $
/ - * - #
5 8.'#8)- ,
-
,
,, / -
- - #8
,
9 -
- #8 , #8( :
-
- .
,
4 +
# 1 4
6 ,
,
, - #8
, , ,
, - , 6 4 +
# 1 4 - ,
,
6 8
, / ,;
'852) "#2%4-( 2$ 1 "3 *-3
-
- 2 -! < &
Reply dated 10.06.2024 =!
"#&%(>48: ? @ / ,;
'852) "#2%4-( 4 7 (!
!
"#$%($1&@$ @$& %(@
< + @ 7 "
2 % 54 ( & -8 !
%(>48:$"#$ 4 - , ( !
/
8
&, .
.8 *
7 =8 0
.
.A 8 0 1 "3 '1"3)
,
"#2%4
1"386
0
"#2%4 ( /.&B
,
6 %
&
8,
0 *
#8
,
1"3 6 . , ,"#2%4( 8 "#2%4 ( " %, -
8
"#2%4
,
8
C
( * ( '6)
" ,
. ," %, " %, ,
. ,,
" %, -1"3-
. -,
" %, + 1"3 ,
#8 / - #8
,
? / /
6 %
&
"#2%4
1"3
,
? /
#8 1"3
,
, 1"3 , #8 , 8 -"#2%4 1"3 #8 8 -#8 1"3
"#2%4 ,
1"3/
"#2%4
%
&/-"#2%4
#8-1"3 #8
/ ? 8#8
/ ? 8 ,
,
#8 "#2%4- "#2%4 #8 #8 @///3" *?D ? #8 1"3 #8
"#2%4
1"3 , #8 1"3 * 8"#2%4 6
#8 "#2%4 ,
#8 $
1"3"#2%4,
, #8 1"3 :
0
,
#8 1"3- 1"3
,
#8 1"3 ,#8( $4 ,1"3
. , 
8
" , - :
,
%
#8( $ 4 , -
1"3 8 6
,
#8 ? /
8
,
. , ,
( '6)
,
(
#8 #8E
" ( !
" " (
( E
C
,
( , ( * - E "
, ( *
,.=8 0
.
.A8 * E " .
, , $"#2%4/ #8 1"3 :
#8 :
,
, #8 1"3
.
- E ,
8E
.
,
.
E - .%,
1"3
.
1 E 1"3 @ 8
+ . ,
E ( * 5* @ 8
0#8
E
. + 8"#2%4
- ,
#8 ( $
8 ,
/
(
,
0 ,
8. /
., , 8. 4!
+$
# ,( % #8 8 , 1"3
"#2%4
#8
, % ,
3
/ #8 8 3
/
1"3 3 3 8
"#2%4 , -
* 8"#2%4
,
? 5#8 / ?
/,
4 -++-+*- * $&"#2%4 #8
, 1"3 0
1"3 ,
#8 "#2%4 8
, 6
-@--$&'48 ( 1 36 )
,
,, 1"3
8 # , , ,
,
6 - %
B 8 2$ F ( B
?6
2/!>$?$
$
0 #8" %, :
0 E
" , 4 -++-+*- * $& ? G H 0
,
4 -@--$&'48 ( 1 36
) G* ,?
, ,
, 6 , ,6 6
,
:
.
1 "3 %
7 /
/.&B
6
0
1"3 /
? / #8 <
#8 1"3 # , A 6.
As per the above quoted reply dated 10.06.2024, submitted by the petitioner, it is clearly revealed that a detailed response had been filed by the petitioner. However, a perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner's response has been rejected by simply stating that the Institute found no merit in the same. None of the grounds specifically taken by the petitioner have been considered. No finding on the justification offered by the petitioner has been returned. The impugned order debarring or blacklisting the petitioner is bereft of any reasoning. 7.
!
reasoned order as the affected person or entity is entitled to know why it is being imposed such a harsh penalty.
8.
In the light of the above, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2025 (Annexure P-1) and remit the matter to the Institute for fresh consideration, in accordance with law.
6 "
#$ " #$