Disposed¶23

Royal Security Services, Sri Ram Vihar, Bolangir v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Oct 2025WP(C)/5474/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Odisha HC writ — tender won by lottery among identical financial bids stalled on stale blacklisting claim (2017 order, three-year term expired 2020) and dormant 2017 FIR; blacklisting cannot operate perpetually ('civil death'; fundamental right to trade and profession); no obligation to disclose expired blacklisting; unsubstantiated allegation/FIR no bar to award; directions to proceed with tender and issue work order within two months; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the authorities to proceed with the tender and issue the work order, completing the entire exercise within two months from communication of the order, conditional on the petitioner fulfilling all terms and conditions. ¶23

Royal Security Services, Sri Ram Vihar, Bolangir Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the authorities' action in stalling the tender process on unsubstantiated allegations, without corroborative evidence, can be supported. +2 more

¶11

Court's answer

In absence of any corroborative evidence, the action of the authorities in stalling the tender cannot be supported.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

An order of blacklisting cannot operate perpetually; it has a limited duration (three years here), and continuing to give effect to it after expiry would prolong the 'civil death' it invites and offend the fundamental right to trade and profession.

¶16

Key takeaways

Once the blacklisting period expires by efflux of time, the tenderer is not obliged to disclose it, because the order was not subsisting on the date of publishing the tender or making the application (or, exceptionally, while awarding the contract).ratio¶18
A statutory authority should not proceed merely on an allegation that is not substantiated by cogent evidence.ratio¶18
No document shows that any cognizance was taken on the alleged FIR, that any investigation was done, or that any report found the petitioner guilty; the petitioner has received no summons, so the FIR should not stand in the way of awarding the contract.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.5474 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, order dated 28.10.2025; Coram: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman). The petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer through a mandated lottery among three bidders who quoted identical prices, but the process was put in limbo solely on a rival bidder's bald allegation that the petitioner was a blacklisted contractor. The Court held that an order of blacklisting cannot operate perpetually: passed in 2017 with a three-year duration, it had expired in 2020, before the tender publication (30.11.2024) and opening (26.12.2024), so no blacklisting was subsisting and there was no obligation to disclose it; perpetuating an expired blacklisting imposes 'civil death' and offends the fundamental right to trade and profession. As to the FIR allegedly lodged on 20.02.2017 by the District Social Welfare Officer, Bolangir, no cognizance, investigation or guilty-finding report was produced and the petitioner had received no summons; an unsubstantiated FIR should not obstruct the award. Finding no corroborative evidence to support the authorities' action, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the authorities to proceed with the tender and issue the work order, the exercise to be completed within two months of communication of the order if the petitioner fulfils all terms and conditions.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.5474 of 2025

¶3

Royal Security Service, Sri Ram …. Petitioner Vihar, Puintala

¶4

Mr. Trilochan Nanda, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debasish Tripathy, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶9

Order No.

¶10

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 28.10.2025

¶11

1. It is a classical example of inhibition shown by the statutory authority on unsubstantiated allegation without any convincing materials having disclosed. The authority should not deter on mere allegations which turn out to be a hoax or concocted for the purpose of depriving the rightful claimant as a tool to take revenge or retaliate. The tender was floated inviting the applications from the eligible tenderers and admittedly, the petitioner along with two other bidders not only qualified in the technical bid stage but also emerged successful in the financial bid stage for the reason that all the three successful bidders quoted identical price. As the law mandates, the lottery was conducted and the petitioner emerged successful therefrom

¶12

Immediately, the allegation was made by one of the successful bidders, who was shown as the second lowest bidder, that the petitioner is a blacklisted contractor and such facts have been grossly suppressed. Solely on the basis of bald allegations having

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

made against the petitioner, the entire process was put in limbo and the petitioner approached the Collector, Bolangir to inform as to whether it has been blacklisted or not.

¶15

The counter affidavit filed in the instant writ petition does not reveal that the petitioner was blacklisted by the Collector, Bolangir. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State on instruction submits that subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit, the communication is made to the effect that the blacklisting proceeding was initiated way back in the year 2017 and, therefore, the authorities are in contemplation of taking a final decision thereupon. It is further submitted that an FIR is also lodged by the District Social Welfare Officer, Bolangir against the petitioner, but the fate thereof is unknown to the parties and he is unable to apprise this Court in this regard.

¶16

Be that as it may, the order of blacklisting, even if such story is accepted to be true for the argument’s sake cannot operate perpetually and it is not denied by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the same operates for a period of three years. Taking clue therefrom, if the order of blacklisting was passed in the year 2017, it expires in the year 2020 having operated for a period of three years and, therefore, on the date of the publication of the tender, i.e., 30^th November, 2024, there was no subsisting order of blacklisting operating in the field. Even on the date when the tender was opened, i.e., 26^th December, 2024, there is no further order of blacklisting nor on the date when the lottery was conducted. The consequence of blacklisting has a far reaching effect inviting a “civil death” and, therefore, the authorities should not pass the order of blacklisting to operate perpetually as it offends

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

the fundamental right to trade and profession and, therefore, should be limited in its duration. The moment the period expires by efflux of time, giving effect to the order of the blacklisting would indirectly tantamount to the continuance of its duration and inviting the civil death to operate for all time to come. Once the period expires, it is not obligatory to disclose as the order of blacklisting was subsisting as on the date of either publishing the tender or making an application or in an exceptional circumstance while awarding the contract. The authority should not proceed simpliciter on the basis of the allegation, which is not substantiated by any cogent evidence. So far as the allegation relating to the lodging of an FIR is concerned, there is no document forthcoming that any cognizance on the basis thereof has been taken or any investigation is done or the report is submitted finding the petitioner guilty of committing an offence. According to the petitioner, till date he has not received any summons in relation to the alleged FIR and, therefore, the same should not stand on the way of awarding the contract.

¶19

It is informed to the Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the alleged FIR was lodged on 20^th February, 2017, more than eight years has elapsed in the meantime, yet nothing transpires therefrom.

¶20

We, thus, do not find that in absence of any corroborative evidence, the action of the authorities can be supported. We, therefore, direct the authorities to proceed with the tender and issue the work order. If the petitioner fulfils all the terms and conditions required to be observed in this regard, we expect that the entire

¶21

Page 3 of 4

¶22

exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order.

¶23

With this observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶24

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶25

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶26

MRS/Laxmikant

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:18:39

¶29

Page 4 of 4

Royal Security Services, Sri Ram Vihar, Bolangir v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Security Services, Sri Ram Vihar, Bolangir v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),Bhubaneswar Vs M/S. Sm Niriyat Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Bhubaneswar Vs Manish Khemka

Commissioner of Customs(Preventive),Bhubaneswar Vs Manish Khemka

Sri Guru Publications, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha

Pinakpani Mohanty Vs Union of India

Swagatika Patel Vs Roopa Roshan Mishra, I.A.S.