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

2025 Supreme(Ori) 553

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Prabodha Chandra Nayak, S.K. Sahu
For the Respondent: Debashis Tripathy

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 adverse actions.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Public Works Department Code - Appendix-IX(A), Clauses 22.3, 23 - Blacklisting and blocking portal registration of contractor - Blacklisting and blocking portal registration found arbitrary and lacking adherence to principles of natural justice due to non-satisfactory explanation and lack of inquiry into contractor's health issues leading to delay in deposit of APS and ISD - Proper procedures not followed, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 12.2, 12.10, 14.1, 14.3)

(B) Jurisdiction of authorities - The authority must provide an adequate opportunity to defend before imposing a penalty such as blacklisting or blocking of registration - Decision-making must adhere to the principles of natural justice and proportionality. (Paras 12.17, 12.18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a contractor, sought to challenge the actions taken against her for failure to timely submit Additional Performance Security (APS) and Initial Security Deposit (ISD) due to health issues. The authority blacklisted her without satisfactory reasoning, despite her evidence of illness.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the authority's actions were arbitrary and not consistent with the procedural safeguards required by the Odisha Public Works Department Code.

Issues: The legitimacy of the authority's decision to blacklist the contractor for a minor delay and the adherence to procedural fairness in the process leading to the blacklisting.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the need for procedural fairness and the inability of the authority to impose such a severe penalty without proper cause.

Result: Writ petition allowed, reversing the blacklisting and directing unblocking of the portal registration.

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

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top