The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.543 of 2025 Sumcon Infraventures LLP, Koklata … Petitioner Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate -Versus- Union of India and others Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Senior Panel Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 Ms. Padmaj Pattnaik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.3 …
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 10.07.2025 06. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner assailing the decision of opposite party no.3 holding that since the petitioner has already been blacklisted, thereby debarred from participating in any future tender to be floated by the said opposite party no.3, and simultaneously forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit amounting to Rs.17,88,436/-. 3. The pleadings do not reveal that the petitioner was debarred in participating in any tender process of opposite party no.3 as a blacklisted contractor, but the blacklisting was done in respect of a Joint Venture in the name of “M/s. Sumcon-Avijantrik”. Since the petitioner was also a part of the said Joint Venture, the said opposite party no.3 robbed the petitioner within the purview of the said blacklisting and forfeited the Earnest Money Deposit on the ground that the petitioner has grossly suppressed the factum of blacklisting Page 1 of 4 while submitting its bid in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). 4. Upon being perceived, the order of the blacklisting was challenged by the petitioner before the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No.2168 of 2023, which was allowed by the High Court by quashing and/or setting aside the letters, by which the petitioner was stated to have been blacklisted, with categorical finding that the other constituent of the Joint Venture without the concurrence and the consent of the petitioner committed a thing which invites the blacklisting and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible therefor. 5. Since the authorities did not accede to the prayer for removal of the blacklisting as well as the return of the Earnest Money Deposit despite having made known to the order passed by the Gauhati High Court, the writ petition was filed again before the Gauhati High Court being WP(C) No.6212 of 2023. A further order was passed while disposing of the said writ petition with categorical finding that the petitioner cannot remain in the list of the blacklisted contractors and directed the removal of its name therefrom. After the said order was passed, the name of the petitioner has been removed from the list of the blacklisted contractors, as a resulted effect, the letters impugned in the instant writ petition are partially quashed and set aside. 6. The issue, which remained in the instant writ petition, relates to the refund of the Earnest Money Deposit. 7. When the writ petition was admitted on 4th February, 2025, the Court after noticing the fact that the order of blacklisting has already been quashed and set aside, made a categorical observation Page 2 of 4 that since the forfeiture was consequential to an order of blacklisting and the same being set aside, it is imperative that the money be refunded to the petitioner. The matter was directed to be listed on 25th February, 2025. The Court permitted the parties to exchange the affidavits, but till date no affidavits have been filed. 8. The Court on subsequent occasions adjourned the matter on the prayer of the contesting opposite parties and being perturbed with the frequent adjournments having sought because the instructions have not been parted by the concerned Department, the Court proceeded to impose the cost of Rs.5,000/- on 15th April, 2025. Even thereafter, no positive steps have been taken from the end of the opposite parties, yet the Court directed the petitioner to issue a notice upon them in order to eradicate any confusion with regard to inadequate communications or lack of communications. 9. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for opposite party no.1 submits that all the orders passed by the Court in the instant writ petition were duly intimated to the concerned authorities, yet he has not received any response therefrom. He further submits that the contact was also made orally as well as through E-mail, but to his dismay, no positive response is given to him. 10. Ms. Padmaj Pattnaik, learned counsel appears for opposite party no.3 and prays for an accommodation. The service appears to have been effected long back, yet a further notice was directed to be served, but there is no positive response received by the appearing counsel as of now. 11. The sequel of events and the orders passed from time to time, leaves no ambiguity in our mind that the order passed by the Page 3 of 4 authority, which is assailed in the instant writ petition, was based upon the factum of black listing of the Joint Venture, to which the petitioner was one of the Member and forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit as the petitioner did not disclose at the time of submission of the bid that it has already been blacklisted. Since the order of blacklisting so far as the petitioner is concerned, has been set aside by the Gauhati High Court in the above noted proceedings, and the authorities have removed the name of the petitioner from the list of the blacklisted contractors, the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit being a fallout of the said blacklisting, cannot have an independent footing. 12. Since the forfeiture is consequential to the blacklisting of the petitioner, as held by this Court on 4th February, 2025, we do not find any justification in not granting the relief as prayed for in the instant writ petition. 13. The order forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The opposite parties or each of them, whoever is responsible for refund of the Earnest Money Deposit, are directed to refund the same within four weeks from the date of communication of this order together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order passed by the Gauhati High Court till its payment. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Jul-2025 14:57:50 Judge MRS/Laxmikant (M.S. Raman) Page 4 of 4