Orissa HC strikes down Balasore Municipality tender over blacklisting clause

Cuttack: Orissa high court has struck down a tender issued by Balasore Municipality after finding that a clause permanently barring previously blacklisted bidders violated constitutional guarantees under Article 19(1)(g).

A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman on Jan 28 held that the condition disqualifying any bidder who had been “ever blacklisted or debarred” imposed a lifelong prohibition and amounted to what the court described as a “complete civil death”.


“It is no longer ‘res integra’ (an untouched matter) 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,” the bench observed. Warning against perpetual exclusion, the court said, “If the debarment or blacklisting is of perennial in nature, it invites a complete civil death.”

The tender had been floated on April 9, 2025 for sanitisation, sweeping and parking facilities around Balasore’s daily markets, including collection of affordable tolls. Clause 15 barred participation of any service provider who had been blacklisted or debarred at any point in time by a tender-inviting authority, govt department or PSU.

Quashing the tender, the HC directed the municipality to float a fresh one in line with constitutional principles within 15 days, noting that the authorities had already shown intent to provide the services in question.

Interpreting the wording, the court said the word “ever” applied “for all time to come” and could not be read in a restrictive manner. The expression “have been ever blacklisted or debarred”, the bench noted, meant that “even a person who has suffered a blacklisting or a debarment for a limited period is perpetually debarred”, thereby creating a permanent obstacle to participation.

The clause, it added, would exclude “even a bidder, who suffered an order of blacklisting for a day”, which is contrary to Supreme Court rulings on proportionality and fairness.

The bench was hearing three writ petitions together — one challenging the legality of issuing a fresh tender without cancelling an earlier one, and another PIL seeking directions for proper sanitation and parking management through a new tender. The court said the matters were heard together to avoid repetition and to ensure effective relief.