Orissa High Court
Haldhar Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 28 January, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch
W.P.(C) No.36703 of 2025
Haldhar Mishra .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.11138 of 2025
G. Manju Services Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.14048 of 2025
Sanjukta Sethi .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in these cases:
For Petitioners : Mr. Pitambar Panda, Advocate
In W.P.(C) No.36703 of 2025
: Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate
In W.P.(C) No.11138 of 2025
: Mr. S. Radhakrishnan, Advocate
In W.P.(C) No.14048 of 2025
For State/Opp. Party : Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate
For Balasore Municipality/
Opp. Party : Mr. Karunakar Rath, Advocate
For Opp. Party No.4 : Mr. Sougat Dash, Advocate
In W.P.(C) No.14048 of 2025
W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch Page 1 of 8
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment: 28th January, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. All these writ petitions are taken up together as the respective writ petitioners intend to achieve the common goal, though taking a different route.
2. A tender was floated by Balasore Municipality and District Administration inviting bids from different service providers for proper sanitization, sweeping and parking facilities nearby the daily markets and the collection of a minimum amount of tolls affordable to the labour and the person having a low income. A prelude to the said tender is felt necessary in order to complete the sequel of events and to decide the points raised in the respective writ petitions.
3. Previously, a tender was floated for the same purpose but could not be pursued for one reason or another and amidst the same, a fresh tender is floated by the said Municipality containing a clause W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch Page 2 of 8 which put a permanent embargo into such service provider, if he has been blacklisted and/or debarred earlier.
4. One of the writ petitioners has taken a different route in challenging the said tender that unless the earlier tender is expressly cancelled, the authority cannot float a fresh tender. However, one of the public-spirited persons has filed the writ petition in the nature of the Public Interest Litigation seeking a mandamus upon the Municipality to provide the sanitization, sweeping and collection of sairat in providing of parking facilities in the daily markets by publishing a new tender.
5. The reason for analogous hearing of the aforesaid writ petitions is not only to avoid the prolixity of repetition of the facts but also to consider the points so raised and, in the event, the tender impugned in the writ petitions is quashed and set aside, the consequential directions that would be passed would subserve the purpose.
6. The writ petition challenging the clause, which put a complete embargo in participation of the service provider who had suffered a blacklisting/debarment order, is taken up for the limited purpose as to whether such clause offends the core ethos of a W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch Page 3 of 8 fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the judicial declaration of law in a catena of decisions rendered by different Courts of the country.
7. Before we embark our journey on such terrain, it would be apposite to quote the said clause, which runs thus:
"15. The Bidder must not have been ever blacklisted or debarred either by the tender inviting authority or by any State Govt. or Govt. of India organization or by any PSUs or by any other department. The agency shall submit the affidavit from Executive Magistrate Only regarding the same on Non-Judicial Stamp paper of Rs. 100/-. If it is detected in the course of bidding evaluation that, a bidder has ever blacklisted / debarred from anywhere in India, then the bidder shall be disqualified on that ground. Revocation of blacklisting /termination / debarment is not allowed. (To be filled up in the given format)"
8. On a bare reading of the said clause, it can be reasonably gathered that a bidder who has been "ever blacklisted or debarred"
either by a Tender Inviting Authority or by any State Government or Government of India organization or by any PSUs or by any other department, shall be debarred from participating in the said tender process.W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch Page 4 of 8
9. It is no longer res integra that blacklisting or debarring a person from participating in a public tender has a larger ramification on the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. If the debarment or blacklisting is of perennial in nature, it invites a complete civil death as the said person during his lifetime may not be permitted to enter into a contractual relationship with the Government or its instrumentalities.
10. Time and again, the apex Court has discarded the blacklisting order to operate perpetually and directed such debarment to be restricted by a particular period of time. One of the recent judgments originating from this Court in case of State of Odisha and others v. Panda Infraproject Limited, reported in (2022) 4 SSC 393, the authorities blacklisted the contractor for an indefinite period on two-fold grounds. Firstly, there has been a gross negligence on the part of the contractor in making construction of a flyover over the railway level crossing, which resulted into falling of Ten (10) metres slab causing casualty of life and serious injuries to many; secondly, the contractor continued the construction work without adhering the design and the specification approved by the authorities. The said order of perpetual debarment W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch Page 5 of 8 and/or blacklisting was challenged before this Court and ultimately reached to the apex Court.
11. The apex Court, after taking into account such disturbing incidents, applied the test of proportionality and held that the perpetual blacklisting tantamount to a civil death which, in other words, undermines the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and reduced the same for a period of Five (05) years.
12. Even this Bench of this Court, in case of Artatran Bhuyan v. State of Odisha and others, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 2844, held that the blacklisting of a contractor has an impact on the privilege and the advantage of entering into a lawful relationship with the Government or its instrumentalities for his livelihood in the form of gain. Though the blacklisting is one of the tools to eliminate such defaulting or a defiant bidder from the selection process in order to ensure a sense of discipline but putting such debarment to continue for all time to come offends the core fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution of India.
13. Bearing in mind the broad principles of law as enunciated above, let us examine whether the said Clause 15 of the tender on a bare look put permanent hindrances to the service provider in W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch Page 6 of 8 participating in the tender process. The word 'ever' used in the said clause in its grammatical meaning applied for all time to come and cannot be given a restrictive meaning to operate in a particular period of time. The expression "have been ever blacklisted or debarred" conveys a laudable message that even a person who has suffered a blacklisting or a debarment for a limited period is perpetually debarred from participating in the said tender process, which impliedly creates an obstacle of permanent in nature.
14. We are not unmindful of the proposition that the debarment or blacklisting is an effective tool to be used by an authority against the defiant or defaulting contractors or the service providers, yet it should not be used as a tool for a civil death.
15. The said Clause 15 inculcates a clear and explicit expression that even a bidder, who suffered an order of blacklisting for a day, shall be prevented from participating in the said tender process. Such permanent debarment is opposed to the decisions rendered by the apex Court in Panda Infraproject Limited (supra) as well as Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
16. We thus quash and set aside the said tender because of the stringent terms and conditions which violates the constitutional W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch Page 7 of 8 rights. It is open to the Balasore Municipality to float a fresh tender taking into account the observations made hereinabove and such exercise shall be undertaken within Fifteen (15) days from the date of this judgment.
17. Since the authorities have already taken initiative by inviting the bid for providing such services, we feel that the issues flagged in these writ petitions by the respective petitioners are meted out.
18. So far as the challenge to the impugned tender is concerned, which is also laid upon another point, in our view, has become mere academic after we quash and set aside the said tender and, therefore, we do not delve to make any observation in this regard.
19. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, these writ petitions are disposed of.
(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Sisira Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) No. 36703 of 2025 & Batch Page 8 of 8 Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Jan-2026 17:36:41