Disposed¶26

Sibu Kanungo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Mar 2026WP(C)/8108/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Portal blocking by Odisha authorities prevented successful bidder from tender participation; 180-day unblocking rule rejected; Article 19(1)(g) right to commercial contracts with Government; delay due to illness met with humanitarian extension and execution of contract implying condonation of default; no blacklisting proceeding initiated; blocking quashed; unblock ordered within 48 hours; writ petition disposed of; bench Harish Tandon C.J. and M.S. Raman J.; decided 18.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Blocking of the petitioner's portal quashed and set aside; the concerned authorities directed to unblock the portal of the petitioner within 48 hours from the date of communication of the order. ¶26

Sibu Kanungo Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Blocking of the petitioner's portal quashed and set aside; the concerned authorities directed to unblock the portal of the petitioner within 48 hours from the date of communication of the order.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the authorities were justified in insisting that a blocked portal cannot be unblocked until the expiry of 180 days from the blocking. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The Court rejected the contention that a blocked portal must pass the muster of 180 days before it can be unblocked, holding that law does not permit action taken in haste that deprives the citizen of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g).

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Blocking of the portal bears on the citizen's right to have commercial contracts with Government authorities, a facet of the fundamental right that cannot be violated and/or abridged without the established procedure of law.

¶19

Key takeaways

Stated in passing while declining to enter the legal principles: blocking of a portal cannot be sustained without initiation of a blacklisting proceeding — or even after a blacklisting order — unless there is an express provision in the contract or statute; the Court expressly proceeded on the facts instead of this legal jargon.obiter¶22
The moment the contract was subsequently executed by and between the parties, the authorities' extension of the period fixed in the letter impliedly condoned the default committed by the petitioner.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, W.P.(C) No.8108 of 2026, order dated 18.03.2026 (Harish Tandon, C.J. and M.S. Raman, J.) — Petitioner, a successful bidder, could not comply with the stipulated period fixed in the letter issued for execution of the contract due to illness; the authorities, adopting a humanitarian approach, extended the time and the contract was thereafter executed. Despite this, the portal remained blocked after expiry of the period set forth in the letter, barring the petitioner from any tender process. The Court rejected the authorities' stand that a block must pass the muster of 180 days, holding that law does not permit hasty action depriving the citizen of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on commercial contracts with Government, which cannot be abridged without established procedure of law. Proceeding on facts, the Court found that execution of the contract after extension impliedly condoned the petitioner's default, making the action taken in the interregnum illegal, invalid and not in accordance with law; once the period is extended and lapses condoned, the blocking cannot continue. The blocking was quashed and set aside and the authorities were directed to unblock the portal within 48 hours from communication of the order; writ petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8108 of 2026

¶2

Sibu Kanungo

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Represented by Adv.– Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate Mr. S.R. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Represented by Adv.–

¶9

Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

18.03.2026

1. The disquiet is manifested from the action of the authority into the petitioner when the authority showed reluctance in removing the blocking of the portal thereby preventing the petitioner from participating in any tender process. The authorities appeared to have beleaguered between the perceived action and the normal procedures applicable with regard to the unblocking of the portal. It is sought to be projected before us that once the blocking of the portal is done, it has to pass the muster of 180 days and unless such period expires, it cannot be unblocked.

¶17

We could not persuade ourselves to such a notion, as the law does not permit any action which is taken intraoral or in a haste thereby depriving the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizen of the country under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The blocking of the portal has a larger ramification on the rights of the citizen to have the

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

commercial contract with the Government authorities which being one of the facets of the fundamental right cannot be violated and/or abridged without the established procedure of law.

¶20

Despite an approach being made to the authorities to unblock the portal, the authorities remained unmoved and for such fringe inaction on the part of the authorities, a litigant has to approach this Court for an appropriate relief.

¶21

The genesis of the litigation can be recapitulated from the facts discerned from the pleadings that the petitioner emerged successful in a tender process and a letter was issued for execution of the contract. The time limit was fixed in the said letter but undeniably, the petitioner remained indisposed because of the illness, he could not secure the compliance within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the authorities were moved with the prayer to extend the time citing the reasons for non-adherence of the time limit set forth in the letter issued by the authority which was considered by adopting humanitarian approach and condoning the delay by extending the period and it is not in dispute that the contact was subsequently executed between the petitioner and the concerned authority. The plight of misfortune continued as the portal which was blocked by the authority after the expiration of the period set forth in the letter communicating the petitioner to be a successful bidder thereby depriving the petitioner from participating in any tender process.

¶22

Without going into the intricacies of the principles of law and the legal jargon as prevalent in this regard that the blocking of the portal without any initiation of a proceeding for blacklisting or even after

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

passing the order of blacklisting, cannot be sustained unless there is an express provision provided in the contract or the statute. We can simply proceed on the basis of the facts emerged from the stand of the parties that the moment the contract is subsequently executed by and between the parties, it impliedly condoned the default committed by the petitioner by extending the period so fixed in the said letter issued to the petitioner. Once the period is extended and the lapses are condoned by the authority by executing an agreement/contract, the action taken in the interregnum cannot be said to be legal, valid or in accordance with law. Once the authorities have extended the period for compliance, the blocking of the portal for any default cannot continue nor to occupy the space in the commercial field.

¶25

Solely on such ground, the action of the authorities in blocking the portal is hereby quashed and set aside. The concerned authorities are directed to unblock the portal of the petitioner within 48 hours from the date of communication of this order.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observation and direction.

¶27

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S.K. Jena/Secy.

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Mar-2026 14:27:08

¶33

Page 3 of 3

Sibu Kanungo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibu Kanungo 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheranwali Infrasture Pvt.Ltd.,Angul Vs State of Odisha

M/S. Misrilall Mines Private Limited, Kolkata, West Bengal Vs Union of India

M/S.Misrilall Mines Private Ltd, West Bengal Vs State of Odisha

Saibu Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Ranjan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Digi Vs State of Odisha