In public tender processes, bidders must provide full, clear, and unambiguous disclosures regarding eligibility. An interim judicial stay on a blacklisting order does not negate the requirement to disclose the underlying factum of the blacklisting, and failure to strictly adhere to these disclosure requirements justifies bid rejection.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the email/order dated 25.03.2026 [hereinafter referred to as 'Impugned Order'] issued by the Respondent, whereby the representation submitted by the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 10.03.2026 passed in W.P.(C) 3019/2026 has been rejected, and the Petitioner has been held ineligible for further participation in the tender process pursuant to the Request for Empanelment [hereinafter referred to as 'RFE'] bearing Ref. No.NICSI/Office Support and PMS/2025/14.

2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the decision of the Respondent, as communicated vide
email dated 25.03.2026, rejecting the Petitioner's representation and affirming its technical disqualification from the tender process on the ground of submission of an incorrect and incomplete disclosure regarding blacklisting, warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Petitioner participated in a tender process initiated by the Respondent for empanelment of agencies for deployment of resources for office support, project management support and rollout services pursuant to the RFE and submitted its bid on 30.12.2025.

5. Vide email dated 06.03.2026, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that its bid had been found non-compliant and was not accepted for further evaluation on the ground that the Petitioner had furnished incorrect information in relation to blacklisting.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) 3019/2026 before this Court challenging the aforesaid communication. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 10.03.2026, whereby this Court directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation to be decided by the Respondent within a period of two weeks and further directed that the financial bids shall not be opened till such decision.

7. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner submitted a representation, which has been rejected by the Respondent vide email dated 25.03.2026, stating that the Technical Evaluation Committee ['TEC'],
upon examination, found no merit in the representation and that the decision of technical disqualification remained unchanged.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though an order of blacklisting dated 09.12.2025 had been passed by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority ['APEDA'], the same was received by the Petitioner only on 22.12.2025. It was stated that the Petitioner challenged the said order by filing W.P.(C) 19821/2025 before this Court, wherein the operation of the blacklisting order was stayed vide order dated 29.12.2025.

9. It was further contended that the Petitioner submitted its bid on 30.12.2025, i.e., subsequent to the grant of interim protection by this Court, and therefore the allegation of submission of incorrect or non- disclosure regarding blacklisting is misconceived. It was submitted that the declaration forming part of the bid documents had already been executed prior to submission of the bid, and no alteration thereof was permissible thereafter.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent j