M/S Rasho Enterprises, Bhubaneswar Vs State of Odisha

2026 and 18^th February, 2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Nimapara Irrigation Division, Nimapara, whereby and whereunder the approval was sought for ignition of a blacklisting proceedings and to take necessary step to block the contractor's license in the Contractor Database Management System (CDMS) Portal along with the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and a corresponding request for blocking the Central Registration for a period of 180 days as per the applicable Rules respectively.

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

2. The petitioner was adjudged as the successful bidder in a Tender Notice dated 28^th October, 2025 and was supposed to deposit the Additional Performance Security (APS) in terms of Clause-6 of the Tender Notice. The petitioner did not deposit the same within the time stipulated in the said Clause, which led a letter dated 13^th January, 2026 to be issued in the form of a show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated, including blacklisting and debarment from participating in the tender for a period of three years and forfeiture of an EMD as per the provisions contained in the Odisha Public Works Department (OPWD) Code and the relevant Rules in vogue.

¶20

3. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 24^th January, 2026 taking a plea that he was suffering from ironic fever between 27^th November, 2025 and 10^th December, 2025 and, therefore, was unable to deposit all the requisite documents within the stipulated time. The authorities subsequently issued a letter dated 29^th January, 2026, which is impugned in the instant writ petition, seeking an approval to initiate a blacklisting proceeding as provided in the Rules applicable in this regard. The same was followed by another letter with a request to block the portal of the petitioner.

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

4. So far as the letter dated 18^th February, 2026 is concerned, the petitioner perceived that by virtue thereof, the portal has been blocked meaning thereby the petitioner is debarred from participating in any future tender. Though the language of the said letter does not suggest such perception but, according to the petitioner, any attempt made to participate in the tender, was prevented by virtue of blocking of the said portal.

¶23

5. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State fairly submits on instruction that the proposal for blacklisting is still under consideration at the higher level and no blocking of the registration portal has been done till date. Even a letter issued by the State Procurement Cell also corroborates the same.

¶24

6. As indicated hereinabove, mere perceiving that the portal has been blocked when in fact it was not so, a writ petition on such assumption is not maintainable. Since the authorities have taken a categorical stand that the portal of the petitioner has not been blocked, we do not find any justification in the stand of the petitioner that it is so. So far as the letter dated 29^th January, 2026 is concerned, it is sought to be contended by Ms. Sarada Dash, learned counsel

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there is a wrong recording of the fact by the authorities to the effect that the show cause notice dated 13^th January, 2026 permits the petitioner a further fortnight’s time to comply the said order and, therefore, the order passed therein warrants interference.

¶27

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the letter dated 13^th January, 2026, as referred and we find substance in the stand of the petitioner that it does not percolate any sense of extending the period for compliance in terms of the tender document, but a simpliciter show cause notice alleging the default having committed by the petitioner in terms of various clauses of the tender and a decision to be taken whether any proceeding is to be initiated against the petitioner for initiation of blacklisting proceeding, blocking of the portal and forfeiture of the EMD.

¶28

8. Since the said letter does not suggest that any decision has been taken, but what it conveys is that why a proceeding for blacklisting, blocking of the portal and the forfeiture of the EMD be not initiated, we do not find that the petitioner can be said to have suffered prejudice. The moment the decision is taken for initiation of

¶29

a proceeding, either for blacklisting or blocking of the portal or

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

forfeiture of the EMD, the authorities will follow the procedures as provided in various Clauses of the tender as well as the other statutory documents. Mere apprehension that it would invite the blacklisting or blocking of the portal is not sufficient enough to maintain a writ petition.

¶32

9. We, thus, find that the cause of action pleaded in the instant writ petition is premature and the writ petition deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.

¶33

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 14-May-2026 20:12:33