Authority cannot perpetually debar an entity from participation in tenders post-blacklisting period.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, CJ.

1. The tender bid submitted by the petitioner is rejected by the authority on a solitary ground of having submitted the false affidavit with regard to the blacklisting.

2. The Transport Commissioner, Odisha floated a tender for selection of a service provider for supplying manpower services with basic computer knowledge on manhour basis to the office of the Transport Commissioner and its subordinate offices. One of the terms incorporated in the said tender document relating to the preparation and evaluation of the proposal mandatorily required several documents to be appended with the tender bid, which includes Non-Blacklisted Undertaking in the format annexed to the bid document as Annexure-7. The said prescribed format requires a certification and confirmation from each of the intending bidders that they are not debarred or blacklisted by an office of the Transport Commissioner, any State Government or Central Government or any State agency/Department from participating in projects as on the proposal due date.

3. The tender was floated on 23^rd May, 2025 and the last date of submission of the bid document was fixed on 12^th June, 2025. The affidavit as per Annexure-7 of the bid document shown by the petitioner revealed that the petitioner is not debarred and/or blacklisted from participating in the project as on the proposal due date.

4. Undeniably, in a proceeding initiated against the petitioner by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kandhamal, Phulbani, it was blacklisted for a period of three years in the said District. A challenge was made to the High Court in W.P.(C) No.11313 of 2021, which was disposed of by the Court directing the authority to consider the representation dated 19^th June, 2021 within a specified time. The matter was remitted to the competent authority and the said representation was disposed of by withdrawing the word ‘blacklisted’, but the petitioner was still prevented from participating in the tender for next three years in the said District. The said order was further challenged in a subsequent writ petition being W.P.(C) No.40185 of 2021, which was disposed of with the following observations:

“3. It is manifest that the operation of the said order has become ineffective with the efflux of time i.e. period of three years.

4. Mr. S. Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has however submitted that on the one hand the Collector decided to withdraw the order of the blacklisting, on the other hand the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the tender processes for providing different category of man power on out sourcing basis for three years, which has the same effect of blacklisting. As a result, this stigma may continue with the petitioner for all times to come.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of the impugned order which has been passed, we dispose of the present writ application with an observation that no observation made in the impugned order dated 19.07.2021 shall be treated to be a stigma against the petitioner for any tender in which he may participate after 19.07.2021.”

5. It is, thus, manifest from the above quoted observations in the earlier writ petition that the Collector withdrew the order of blacklisting but prevented the petitioner from participating in a tender process for three years, which according to the petitioner tantamount to continuance of the stigma attached to the petitioner. While disposing of the said writ petition, the Division Bench observed that none of the observations made by the Collector in its order shall be treated as a stigma for any tender in which he may participate after 19^th July, 2021.

5.1. T