The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.24817 of 2025 Mairun Bibi … Petitioner Mr. Shanti Prakash Mohanty, Advocate Union of India and others … Opposite Parties -Versus-
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Ajay Kumar Roy, Senior Panel Counsel for Opposite Parties CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 14.10.2025 1. An attempt is made to resurrect the stale claim by approaching the Court, raising the grievance of inaction on the part of the Administrative Authorities in not reviewing the entire situation. Undeniably, the petitioner suffered from an order of debarment for a period of five years but did not disclose such order or the fact while participating in the tender floated during the mischief period of the debarment. 1.1. After coming to know of the same, the Authorities highlighted such issues and steps were taken to rescind the contract executed in favour of the petitioner. The order of debarment was assailed earlier before the Patna High Court on the premise that neither the principle of natural justice was followed nor was the said order ever communicated to the petitioner. The Patna High Court, after perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Competent Authority, was of the view that the order of debarment suffers from the vices of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Page 1 of 5 1.2. Consequently, the order of debarment was interfered with and petitioner brought the same to the notice of the authority by way of a representation that since the order of debarment no longer exists, having quashed and set aside by the competent High Court, there is no infirmity and/or irregularity on the part of the petitioner in disclosing the correct fact at the time of its participation in the tender process. While considering the representation filed by the petitioner, the Authority not only rejected the same but also imposed the debarment for a period of three years, which again was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court, being W.P.(C) No.10280 of 2025. 1.3. The preamble of the said application is the reflection of the challenge having made in the said writ petition that the order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Khurda Road rejecting a representation dated 20.04.2023 being violative of the order passed by the Patna High Court. The said writ petition was entertained and ultimately, on 25.06.2025, the petitioner chose to withdraw the said writ petition as the period of blacklisting from 25.11.2020 to 24.11.2025 has been revoked by the Competent Authority. The order dated 25.06.2025 does not reveal that any liberty was sought to challenge the selfsame order in a subsequent proceeding while the prayer for withdrawal was made. The tenet of the order is suggestive of the fact that since the period of blacklisting has been revoked and/or lifted, such writ petition becomes infructuous. 1.4. Be that as it may, the order of debarment passed by the Authority for a period of three years being the subject matter of earlier writ petition, stood uninterferred with and moment the writ petition is withdrawn, it impliedly invites a situation that the said order remained uninterferred with and operating in the field. A further representation Page 2 of 5 is made and the inaction on the part of the Authority is projected in the instant writ petition. 2. Our attention is drawn to a letter dated 11.03.2025 issued by the Office of the General Manager (Commercial), Hajipur indicating that the petitioner is released from debarment and made fit to participate in future catering contracts/tenders over Indian Railway and IRCTC. It is sought to be interpreted by the petitioner that once of the order of the debarment is quashed, the period for which such debarment was made gets lapsed and, therefore, it would be construed that the petitioner was never debarred from participating in the tender process. In other words, it is sought to be contended that the said letter would suggest that the debarment would take effect from a retrospective date and, therefore, the Authorities could not have imposed the debarment for a period of three years. 2.1. We are unable to comprehend such perception from the tenet of the letter dated 11.03.2025 for the reason that the Authorities have communicated the decision with the stipulation that it will not create any brindle in participating in future catering contracts. The expression the ‘future’ connotes the date posterior to the date of the letter and, therefore, has to be construed in a prospective manner. 2.2. Apart from the same, the said letter was within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when the earlier writ petition was filed before this Court and was withdrawn by the petitioner. Once the proceeding is withdrawn without any liberty to file afresh for the self- same cause of action, it creates an estoppel into the litigant to reopen the issues germane prior to the institution of an earlier writ petition or during the currency of the said proceeding. 2.3. Furthermore, the attention is drawn to another letter dated 05.06.2025 issued by the East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division, Page 3 of 5 wherein it is indicated that since the matter is sub judice in the High Court, the representation dated 29.05.2025 for withdrawal of debarment cannot be considered till the disposal of the writ petition. The said letter is dated prior to the date of an order passed by this Court permitting the withdrawal of the said writ petition and, therefore, was within the knowledge of the petitioner. 2.4. An explanation is sought to be made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not aware of the order of debarment and the Authorities were not contemplating to reassess the situation because of the pendency of the earlier writ petition, the withdrawal was made so that the Authority can take a conscious decision thereupon. It is within the exclusive domain of the Authority to take a conscious decision based upon the facts disclosed before it and whether the order of debarment subsequently imposed by the said Authority even the order of debarment is quashed and set aside by the Patna High Court in relation to the other aspects. Whether the order subsequently passed for debarment is a dependent order is to be decided by an Authority and the Court should not substitute itself into the domain of the Administrative Authority and to decide. 3. The power enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised in a cavalier manner nor to be exercised to find out whether the administrative order is correct or not but should confine its scrutiny on the process by which such decision has been arrived. It is within the competence of the Administrative Authority to take a decision and, therefore, the Court should not substitute itself in a decision to be arrived by the Administrative Authority. 4. We, thus, do not find any merit in the instant writ petition for the reason that the issue cannot be reopened in a judicial parlance once Page 4 of 5 the earlier writ petition is withdrawn without any liberty to file afresh for the selfsame cause of action. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Chief Justice (Harish Tandon) Judge Aswini (M.S. Raman) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 19-Oct-2025 12:50:32 Page 5 of 5