IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, CJ, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
Rinabala Sethi D/o Late Seshadeba Sethi – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 21309 of 2024
Decided On : 22-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of petitioner's challenge against refusal of security deposit. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. admittance of counter affidavit regarding eligibility and compliance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments for reconsideration of blacklisting due to illnesses. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court’s observations on blacklisting process and notice requirements. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. legal authority’s requirement for blacklisting and proportionality principles. (Para 10) |
| 6. conclusions regarding procedural failures and unlawful actions taken by authorities. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. final order to unblock portal registration and refund. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.
1. Refusal to accept the Additional Performance Security and the Initial Security Deposit being prepared on 24.07.2024 (and not before 22.07.2024) with respect to the work "Clearance of drainage congestion from different drainage channels in Banki and Damapada Block of Cuttack District in Bid identification No.EE-DD-CTC-NO.03/2024-25" as communicated vide Letter No.DDC-ESTR-TENP1-15/2024—4274, dated 12.08.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Cuttack (Annexure-1) was under challenge on the ground that the order of refusal is bereft of reason though plausible explanation has been proffered.
1.1. In addition thereto and in connection therewith, the petitioner also sought to challenge the Order dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure-7) passed by the Chief Engineer- cum-Chief Manager (Technical) in blocking portal registration in pursuance of recommendation of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Cuttack vide Letter No.4274, dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure-1) and the direction contained therein to effect forfeiture of amount of Earnest Money Deposit in terms of Clause 23.3 of Appendix-IX(A) appended to Volume-II of the Odisha Public Works Department Code on the grounds that such action is not only unjustified, but also illegal, arbitrary and in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice offending the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Case of the petitioner:
2. The petitioner, a Contractor registered under Public Works Department Contractor‘s Registration Rules, 1967, having experience in execution of contract works under different Departments of the Government of Odisha, participated in the tender floated by the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, vide public e- procurement notice No.EE.DD-CTC-01/2024-25 for different works including the work of "Clearance of Drainage Congestion from different drainage channels in Banki and Damapada Block of Cuttack District in Bid identification No.EEDD-CTC-NO.01/2024-25 to 07/2024-25" where she emerged successful in the technical bid stage and as per Clause 13 of the conditions of tender, the authority conducted transparent lottery on 12.07.2024 amongst the qualified bidders and the petitioner was declared as the lowest (L- 1) and the tender authority vide Letter No.3038 dated 15.07.2024 issued letter of acceptance directing the petitioner to submit the requisite Additional Performance Security ("APS" for short) for an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- and Initial Security Deposit ("ISD" abbreviated) for an amount of Rs.4,450.00 drawn on any Nationalized Scheduled Bank on or before 22.07.2024.
2.1. Vide Letter No.4053 dated 23.07.2024, the Executive Engineer intimated that though in terms of Works Department Office Memorandum No.4559/W, dated 05.04.2021 under Clause 33 of Volume-II of the Odisha Public Works Department Code (for convenience "OPWD Code") the petitioner in Letter No.3038 dated 15.07.2024 was instructed to make security deposit towards APS and ISD on or before 22.07.2024 for acceptance of tender, there was failure to comply with the same within the period stipulated. However, it was also directed to explain on or before 08.08.2024 as to why action deemed proper would not be initiated against the petitioner.
2.2. The petitioner vide Letter dated 25.07.2024 intimated the authority concerned showing cause that due t


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Major Tikka Khushwant Singh
R.K. Upadhyaya Vs. Shanabhai P. Patel
Nareshbhai Bhagubhai Vs. Union of India
Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd.
Principles of natural justice and proportionality must be upheld in administrative decisions such as blacklisting, ensuring that adequate opportunity is provided to contractors to defend against adve....
Administrative actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, allowing reasonable justifications for compliance with contractual obligations, particularly regarding health-related delays.
The Petitioner's suppression of a material fact and approach to the Court with unclean hands led to the dismissal of the Petition.
The requirement for a fair hearing and a specific show cause notice before imposing the severe civil consequence of blacklisting, and the need for the authority to determine the period of punishment ....
Debarment or blacklisting must be proportionate to the default committed by the bidder. Proper reasons must be provided for blacklisting, and the principles of natural justice must be followed. Black....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that before blacklisting a person/entity, adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard must be provided, in accordance with the principles of nat....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.