Judgment

1. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“(i) by appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 27.02.2026 & 20.03.2026 passed by respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to discharge the work as awarded vide work order dated 17.02.2026 for one year.

(iii) Issue an order or to appropriate writ, direction directing to the respondents submit the entire record from 27.02.2026 to 20.03.2026 for the purpose of showing that why and how the decision of cancellation of work order awarded to the petitioner has been taken by the respondent authority.

(iv) Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE LIS AT HAND :

2. Before adverting to the rival submissions and entering upon the arena of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is considered apposite to delineate the factual background and the circumstances, in a nutshell, which have culminated in the present adjudication:

2.1 The petitioner is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of providing manpower outsourcing services since the year 2012. The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (for short, ‘ESIC’) issued a public notice dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure-2) through the Government e-Marketplace (for short, ‘GeM’) portal, inviting tenders for providing manpower outsourcing services to the respondents.

2.2 The petitioner, claiming to possess the requisite eligibility, participated in the bidding process and emerged successful in both the technical and financial bids. In compliance with the tender stipulations, the petitioner submitted an undertaking dated 03.11.2025 in the prescribed standard format (Annexure-3). Finding the petitioner competent, the respondents awarded the contract to the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2026 (Annexure-4) and issued work order dated 17.02.2026 (Annexure-5) in favour of the petitioner for a period of one year.

2.3 The genesis of the dispute inter se the parties arose when respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 27.02.2026 (Annexure-7) to the petitioner stating that the said work order stands deferred until further orders. Subsequently, respondent No.2 also issued a Show Cause Notice vide e-mail dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure-8), directing the petitioner to appear on 09.03.2026 and tender a justifiable explanation as to why the awarded contract should not be terminated. The said Show Cause Notice was premised on the serious allegation that the petitioner had previously been banned/blacklisted by a government authority in an earlier tender and had allegedly indulged in unethical practices in the recruitment of staff.

2.4 Although the petitioner submitted its clarification vide letter dated 07.03.2026 (Annexure-9) along with all the relevant documents and attended the said meeting on 09.03.2026, the respondent authorities, finding the explanation unsatisfactory, passed the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure-15), prematurely terminating the contract dated 16.02.2026 awarded in favour of the petitioner on the grounds of active concealment of previous blacklisting and engagement in unethical practices. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure-16) seeking urgent intervention, which remained unconsidered, and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned action of premature termination is