A company retains the right to participate in tenders unless formally blacklisted, despite the cancellation of previous bidding processes.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a company, that provides services for the pharmaceutical and life science industries. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the rejection of the financial bid submitted by the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P13(a) on the reason that, the petitioner was blacklisted due to the violation of the terms of another contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondent herein. The challenge is raised by the petitioner against Ext.P13(a), on the ground that, at no point of time, the petitioner was issued with any order of blacklisting and hence the rejection of the tender submitted by the petitioner, as per Ext.P13(a) is illegal. Ext.P13(a) was issued in respect of the tender reference No.P/50/D/2025-2026. The reliefs sought by the petitioner are as follows:

“a. Issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash and set aside the blacklisting of the Petitioner by the Respondent which the petitioner came to know on 24/10/2025 and remove the said Blacklisting caption from the e-tendering portal for tenders of Kerala.

b. pass an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash and set aside the cancellation of the work order dated 4^th December 2024 and allow the Petitioner to rectify the irregularities and commission the machines as per the minutes of the meeting dated

25^th June 2025.

c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition allow the Petitioner to participate in all the Tenders issued by the Respondent and other companies in Kerala and all other states.

d. Pass any other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

e. dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents;”

2. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the respondent controverting the averments contained in the writ petition and opposing the reliefs sought for.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition by stating that, even now no order of blacklisting has been passed and therefore, an interference is required in Ext.P13(a). However, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is clearly averred that, as far as Ext.P13(a) is concerned, the same does not have any consequence, since the tender itself was cancelled by the respondent and the work was re-tendered. In the re-tender notification, the petitioner did not submit any bid and the tender process based such re-tender is already finalized. As far as the blacklisting as referred to in Ext.P13(a) is concerned, it is conceded by the respondent that, as of now, there is no order of blacklisting. The respondent has only issued Ext.R1(n) show cause notice to the petitioner on 14.01.2026 proposing to blacklist the petitioner and the process in respect of the same is in progress.

5. After considering all relevant aspects, I am of the view that, as the tender which is covered by Ext.P13(a) is already cancelled, the reliefs sought by the petitioner need not be considered. However, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, as of now, there is no order of blacklisting of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to participate in all the tenders. The prohibition, if any, would come into force only in case where the petitioner is blacklisted, based on the proceedings now initiated as per Ext.R1(n). It is clarified that, finalization of the same can only be done, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard and adverting to the objections, if any, submitted by the petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.