1 2025:HHC:43738 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 19682 of 2025 Date of decision: 11.12.2025. ________________________________________________________ M/s Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. …..Petitioner Versus Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi ...Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Mishra, Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Ms. Kiran Sharma and Mr. Devansh Pundir, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akhil Mittal (through V.C.), Mr. Anirudh Sharma and Ms. Srishti Negi, Advocates. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration in the present writ petition is to the opening of the financial bid of the petitioner submitted in response to the Tender Notice dated 30.07.2025 for the Project Management Consultancy Services for Planning, Design and Development for Construction of various works described in the said Tender Notice, to be carried out in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Mandi. The estimated cost of the project is stated to be Rs. 375 crores and the contract was to be awarded for six years. 2. Though, petitioner has not challenged the letter dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-5), wherein it has been mentioned that the financial bid is not to be opened unless the petitioner produces the evidence of having the blacklisting order rolled back by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (for short ‘BMC’) and the financial bid of other eligible bidders would be opened on or before 10.12.2025 (15.00 hours), which led to the filing of the present writ petition. 3 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was no blacklisting by the competent Authority, while referring to the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar, dated 28.07.2025 in Arb. (P) No. 37 of 2025, (Annexure P-4), whereby the petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, was dismissed on the ground that it was pre-mature. It is not in dispute that the order as such has not been assailed by the petitioner. It is accordingly contended that in such circumstances, there was no concealment since the last date for submitting the tender was 18.09.2025, which was extended from 06.09.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sole respondent submitted that there was concealment of facts, as the details were never mentioned regarding the blacklisting and any litigation pending, while referring to the terms as such of the Proforma (Annexure-II), whereby under Clause 5, it was to be disclosed whether the bidder PSU has even been 4 blacklisted by any organization and to give details. It has further been mentioned in the said document that if any fact/information was found incorrect/misleading, the bid would be rejected and the bidder would be liable to legal action. It is further contended that as per Clause 7(iv) of the Tender Notice, if the work was awarded and thereafter misleading statement was made or false representation or deliberate suppression of information was found, it would be a ground as such to cancel the contract. 5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the argument which has now been raised that whether the competent Authority as such has issued the blacklisting order or not, is not an issue which has to be gone into by this Court, but only the issue of concealment. 6. It is not disputed that vide letter dated 25.09.2024, which was issued much before the floating of the tender by Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation had communicated 5 to the petitioner vide letter dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) that the petitioner was pronounced as blacklisted by BMC and it would not be allowed to participate in the tender process of the balance work and any further tender work forever. The contract of the petitioner was terminated and the money deposit and security deposit including performance guaranty were forfeited to the Government. It has further been mentioned in the letter that as the work was to be awarded to another Contractor, the petitioner would have no claim of compensation for any loss. The petitioner was asked to attend the joint measurement of the executed work on 18.09.2024 at 11.a.m., failing which the work would be measured ex-parte. 7. The aforesaid letter was followed by another letter dated 05.03.2025, photocopy of which has been placed on record by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, today itself. 8. By the said letter, the petitioner was asked to attend the joint measurement of the executed work 6 on 10.03.2025 at 11.00 a.m., failing which the work would be measured ex-parte. In the said letter, it has been mentioned that the Corporation vide Resolution No. 7(27), dated 14.08.2024 had decided to close the contract with the petitioner as it had failed to complete the Project even beyond 500% of time over run. This fact has also been noticed by the Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar in its order dated 28.07.2025 and the reasoning as such reads as under: “Heard, both parties. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner agency has been pronounced blacklisted by the BMC, which is apparent from the letters dtd. 05.09.2024 & 05.03.2025. But, neither of the parties has produced any such blacklisting order. Further, the learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the State Government is the competent authority to blacklist any agency as per the provision of OPWD Act and no blacklisting order has been received from the State Government till date. Hence, under the above circumstances, this court is in doubt as to how an order can be kept in abeyance, which does not exist at all. Hence, after hearing both parties, I am of 7 opinion that the prayer of the present petition is a pre-mature one, for which it is liable to be rejected. Consequently, the petition stands rejected.” 9. Thus the petitioner, at that point of time, already had the order in hand and could have placed the same alongwith the bid document as such, once the last date for submission of the tender was 06.09.2025, which was extended upto 18.09.2025. The Clause as such is clear regarding the concealment aspect, as per Annexure-II, which is a part of the tender document. The relevant part of the said document reads us under:- “5. Has the bidder PSU been blacklisted by any organistion at any time. If so, attach the details of the same. 6 to 26…………… Note: Attach attested copies of all the documents in support of above-mentioned points  It is hereby certified that………………. (The bidding PSU herein) has never been black-listed by Central/State Governments/PSUs. 8  It is hereby submitted that all the terms and conditions of this RFP are acceptable to the Bidder PSU It hereby certify that the above-mentioned particulars are true and correct. if any fact/information is found incorrect/ misleading, the bid shall be rejected, and the bidder is liable for legal action. 10. The petitioner himself, by choice as such, has not given the details of the blacklisting and the respondent having been informed of the same by some source had also issued show cause notice dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) asking the petitioner to give reply to the same on or before 24.11.2025 (17.00 hours), while mentioning the letter dated 05.09.2024. Though the reply was given on the same date i.e. 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) by the petitioner and justification had been tried to be given that the aforesaid letter was in violation of the Agreement entered into between the BMC & the petitioner- Company and that Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar as such had also come to the 9 conclusion that there was no blacklisting order passed against the petitioner. The relevant part of the reply to the said show cause reads as under:- “With reference to the show cause notice received vide aforementioned letter dated 21 11.2025, we wish to submit the following factual and categorical responses for your kind consideration 1. It is stated that B AND R was justified in submitting the undertaking, as per Annexure-ll of the RFP documents, declaring that B AND R-had never been blacklisted by Central/ State Government/PSUs and B AND R continue to stand by its submission. 2. The referenced communication, no. 36854 dated 05.09.2024, received from the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC), was in violation of AGREEMENT entered into between BMC & B AND R, and was accordingly challenged before the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge (Commercial Court) Bhubaneswar. The BMC thereafter have accepted in the court that no blacklisting order exists against B AND R. Copy of the Court Judgment is attached herewith for your kind reference. It is stated that the complainant has lèvelled false, defamatory and malafide allegations against a Central PSU without even verifying the facts apparently intending to harm the 10 company's reputation or prejudice the evaluation process, thereby entitling B AND R to initiate appropriate legal action against the complainant. We request that you kindly share a copy of the complainant's email communication. 3. In view of foregoing, it is evident that, B AND R has not provided any incorrect or misleading information in the bid document, therefore, rejection of B AND R's bid is not warranted. B AND R, being a PSU of the Govt. of India maintains the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. We trust that this response clarifies the position of B AND R beyond any ambiguity and reaffirms our credentials and compliance with the RFP requirements.” 11. It is thus apparent that the justification was given subsequently after the respondent discovered the fact that the petitioner was already issued blacklisting order and there was a litigation pending. The petitioner was supposed to come with clean hands while submitting the tender document, but it has failed to do so. 11 12. We find plausible reason as to why the respondent did not want to open the financial bid of the petitioner and even the petitioner was also apparently given adequate time as such to produce the evidence of having the blacklisting order rolled back by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC), vide letter dated 08.12.2025 (Anneuxre P-5). No material as such has been placed even before us to show that the blacklisting order was rolled back by Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC). In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the manner in which the respondent as such has proceeded with the matter, does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is a settled principle that the respondent has to enter into a contract and examine the tender/financial bid as per the Notice Inviting Tender and once there is violation of the terms and conditions as such of the document which binds both parties, it is 12 open to the respondent to exclude the petitioner. If the petitioner has certain rights from the said document, it is also bound by certain terms and conditions thereof. 14. Thus, we do not find any reason to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. December 11, 2025 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.