2025:HHC:43738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

CWP No. 19682 of 2025

Date of decision: 11.12.2025.

________________________________________________________

M/s Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd.

…..Petitioner

Versrus

Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi

...Respondent

________________________________________________________

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Mishra, Ms. Ayushi

i Rajput, Ms. Kiran Sharma and Mr. H Devansh Pundir, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Akhil Mittal (through V.C.), Mr. Anirudh Sharma and Ms. Srishti Negi,

Advocates.

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

Consideration in the present writ petition is to the opening of the financialf bid of the petitioner submitted in response to the Tender Notice dated 30.07.2025 for the Project Management Consultancy Services for Planning, Design and Development for Construction of various works described in the said Tender Notice, to be carried out in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mandi. The estimated cost of the project is stated to be Rs. 375 crores and the contract was to be awarded for six years.

2. Though, petitioner has not challenged the H letter dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-5), wherein it has been mentioned that the financial bid is not to be opened unless the petitioner produces the evidence of having the blacklisting order rolled back by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (for short ‘BMC’) and the financial bid of other eligible bidders would be opened on or before 10.12.2025 (15.00 hours), which led to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was no blacklisting by the competent Authority, while ref erring to the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar, dated 28.07.2025 in Arb. (P) No. 37 of 2025, (Annexure P-4), whereby the petition filed under Section 9 of thue Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was dismissed oon the ground that it was pre-mature. It is not Cin dispute that the order as such has not been assailed by the petitioner. It is accordingly contended that in such circumstances, there was no concealment gsince the last date for submitting the tender was i18.09.2025, which was extended from 06.09.2025.

4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sole respondent submitted that there was concealment of facts, as the details were never mentioned regarding the blacklisting and any litigation pending, while referring to the terms as such of the Proforma (Annexure-II), whereby under Clause 5, it was to be disclosed whether the bidder PSU has even been blacklisted by any organization and to give details. It has further been mentioned in the said document that if any fact/information was found in correct/misleading, the bid would be rejected and the bidder would be liable to legal action. It is further contended that as per Clause 7(iv) of the Tender Notice, if the work was awarded and uthereafter misleading statement was made or faolse representation or deliberate suppression of infCormation was found, it would be a ground as such to cancel the contract.

5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the gparties, we are of the considered opinion that the iargument which has now been raised that whether the competent Authority as such has issued the blacklisting order or not, is not an issue which has to be gone into by this Court, but only the issue of concealment.

6. It is not disputed that vide letter dated 25.09.2024, which was issued much before the floating of the tender by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation had communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P-