The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24026 of 2024 M/s. Kwick Soft Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Tamilnadu …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Ms. Aishwarya Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 21.08.2025 08. 1. The writ petition is taken out by the petitioner assailing the order dated 5th August, 2024 passed by the A.I.G. of Police, (Provisioning), Odisha, Cuttack, by which the petitioner was debarred from participating in any tender process for a period of two years. 2. The facts emerged from the record are more or less undisputed. The petitioner was declared as the lowest bidder and was awarded the order to supply five types of Kits in large quantity to the Odisha Police. The supply was made by the petitioner and the payments have also been released as and when the invoices were raised before the authority. Subsequently, a policy decision was taken that instead of a physical copy of the Performance Bank Guarantee (PGB), the Bank Guarantee should be given in an Electronic Form. The services were taken up by National E-Governance Services Limited (NeSL), which provides the safety lockers for all the important and Page 1 of 4 the precious documents and the petitioner was directed to submit the Electronic Performance Bank Guarantee. The petitioner immediately applied to the Bank for issuance of Electronic Performance Bank Guarantee, which was issued by the Indian Bank, but instead of mentioning the Unique Identification Number (UIN) of the Odisha Police, the Permanent Account Number (PAN) number of one of the Directors of the Petitioner-Company was incorporated. Upon detection of the said mistake, the petitioner was apprised of the same and immediately approach was made to the Bank, which is subsequently rectified and, accordingly, the Electronic Performance Bank Guarantee was issued to the authority. Despite the rectified Electronic Performance Bank Guarantee having issued by the Bank, a show-cause notice was issued upon the petitioner as to why it should not be debarred for committing such mistake. The petitioner responded to the said show-cause admitting the ministerial and/or accidental error which has nothing to impact the genuineness of the Bank Guarantee nor creating any obstacle in invocation thereof, but the authorities were dissatisfied with the said reply and passed the order debarring the petitioner from participating into any future tender for a period of two years. 3. It is no doubt true that the debarment or blacklisting of any individual or an entity to participate in a tender process is akin to a “civil death” as a person is deprived of entering into any commercial relationship with the public or the Government. Any order of debarment or blacklisting is always regarded as a stigma attached to the commercial dealing with the Government and in Page 2 of 4 effect debars from a person to have the award of the Government contracts. The debarment or blacklisting has an effect of bringing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into a lawful relationship with the Government or its instrumentalities and above all impacts the livelihood. In effect such debarment has a far- reaching consequence in public contracts and, therefore, the authority must view the misconduct more scrupulously before taking a decision of debarment/blacklisting. The misdeed must be of such magnitude which in ordinary sense is not expected from a reasonable man. It may at times should be judged on the parameter of unfair means or illegal gain. The minimal or accidental omission or mistake, which was subsequently rectified, if it does not, cause any prejudice or hinders in its invocation as the Bank remain committed to the person, in whose favour the Bank Guarantee is issued to honour the same, the authority must view the mistake in such perspective. Mere non-incorporation of UIN of the Odisha Police and incorporation of the PAN number of one of the Directors of the petitioner-Company mistakenly neither invalidates the said Bank Guarantee nor put any invasion into its invocation by the Odisha Police in the event the same is warranted from the conduct of the petitioner. Apart from the same, the said ministerial mistake was rectified by the Bank issuing the Bank Guarantee, which does not in our view invites the civil death as held by the Apex Court in the case of Gorkha Security Services Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) and others, (2014) 9 SCC 105 in the following:- “16. It is a common case of the parties that the blacklisting has to be preceded by a show-cause notice. Law in this Page 3 of 4 regard is firmly grounded and does not even demand much amplification. The necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice by giving the opportunity to the person against whom action of blacklisting is sought to be taken has a valid and solid rationale behind it. With blacklisting, many civil and/or evil consequences follow. It is described as “civil death” of a person who is foisted with the order of blacklisting. Such an order is stigmatic in nature and debars such a person from participating in government tenders which means precluding him from the award of government contracts.” 4. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the order impugned in the writ petition is shockingly disproportionate to the act of perceived misconduct and, therefore, cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. In addition to the same, we must record that because of pendency of the instant writ petition for a considerable period of time, the petitioner has already suffered a greater prejudice. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. All the pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 17:33:24 MRS/Laxmikant (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Page 4 of 4