Orissa High Court
WP(C)/36078/2025 of SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 20 May 2026
of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.36078 of 2025 Sanjay Kumar Agrawal …. Petitioner Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar, Government Advocate CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.36078 of 2025
Sanjay Kumar Agrawal
….
Petitioner
Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. Kailash Chandra Kar, Government Advocate
CORAM:
HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
20.05.2026
07.
1. Though the challenge was made to a letter dated 30th October, 2025 whereby and whereunder the recommendation was made for forfeiture of EMD, DSC blocking and blacklisting of the petitioner being violative of Clause-11 of the Detailed Tender Call Notice (DTCN) as well as contrary to Articles 14 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner restricted its prayer to the extent that once the period enshrined in an order blacklisting and/or debarring the petitioner expires, the blocking of a portal assigned to the petitioner cannot continue.
2. Rule 23 [Appendix-IX (A)] of the Odisha Public Works Department (OPWD) Code Vol-II contains an exhaustive provision relating to “Blocking of Portal Registration”. It engulfs within itself a situation where the registration certificate of a contractor is cancelled/suspended by the registering authority/blacklisted by the competent authority. It further provides that in the event the revocation order of cancellation/ suspension/blacklisting is received from the concerned authority, the portal registration so blocked shall be unblocked automatically. Rules 23.1 and 23.2 of the OPWD Code, Vol.-II are quoted as under: “23. BLOCKING OF PORTAL REGISTRATION :
23.1. If the Registration Certificate of the Contractor is cancelled / suspended by the registering authority / blacklisted by the competent authority his portal registration shall be blocked automatically on receipt of information to that effect.
23.2. The portal registration blocked in the ground mentioned in the above Para-23.1 shall be unblocked automatically in receipt of revocation order of cancellation / suspension / blacklisting from the concerned authority.”
3. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules would reveal that the portal may be blocked in the event the contractor is blacklisted by the competent authority and shall remain blocked until further information is received. It also provides for an automatic unblocking on the receipt of the revocation and/or suspension of the order, but it does not contain a situation where the period of blacklisting has elapsed by passage of time. Though there is no express mention of the situation as has arisen in the instant case where the period of blacklisting expired by efflux of time, the intention and the object underlying the said provisions can be reasonably interpreted that it also encompasses a situation where the period of blacklisting expired and the automatic unblocking would be ensured. It is no gainsaying that the blacklisting and/or debarring the person from participating in any future tender or entering into the commercial contract with the Government is regarded as a civil death.
4. A catena of decisions rendered by the apex Court as well as this Court have reaffirmed that the blacklisting/debarment cannot run perpetually but must be for a definite period.
5. A person shall not be permitted to remain debarred from entering into any commercial contract with the Government or its instrumentalities as it offends the core ethos of Articles 14 and 19
(1) (g) of the Constitution of India. As this OPWD Code suggests the blocking of the portal is prelude to an initiation for blacklisting and/or debarment and it would remain operative until the period enshrined in the blacklisting order expires. Though the expression “receipt of revocation of a blacklisting order” is used in the aforementioned Rules, the moment the order of blacklisting which has limited life is made known to the authority, who is in the helm of blocking the portal, that said period expired, there would be no justification and/or reasonability in continuing with the blocking of the portal.
6. In recent time, the auction having a definite pecuniary value is done through a portal and in the event the portal is blocked, it has an implied effect of debarment and/or blacklisting of a person in participating in the future tender or to enter into a commercial contract with the Government or its instrumentalities. It has the same effect as of the blacklisting and, therefore, no distinction could be drawn in this regard.
7. In the instant case, the period of blacklisting has received its natural death upon the period having elapsed; there cannot be any continuity of the blocking of the portal. We, therefore, direct the authorities to immediately unblock the portal assigned to the petitioner, which should not exceed beyond 24 hours from the date of the receipt of this order.
8. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman) Judge M. Panda Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-May-2026 13:10:07 Signature Not Verified