IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 29239 of 2025 M/s. SMSL-DDBL (JV), Kalahandi …. Petitioner Mr. Durga Prasad Nanda, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Debashis Tripathy, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 12.01.2026 01. 1. The challenge is made to several communications/orders passed by the authorities, including the action relating to debarment of the petitioner in participating in the future tender. 2. The dispute arose as far back as in the year 2020-2021, when the performance guarantee was sought to be deposited and/or submitted by the petitioner. The authorities extended the time, yet there was some dispute cropped up between them, which created a brindle in adhering to the said requisition by the authorities. A Plea has been taken by the petitioner that unless the site is handed over, free from all encumbrances, it is impossible on its part to continue with the work or commence the execution of the work and several correspondences were exchanged between the parties in the meantime. 3. Subsequently, several show-cause notices were issued against the petitioner in relation to violation of the terms and conditions of the contract and an action was contemplated to blacklist the petitioner from participating in any future tender. 4. Our attention is drawn to a letter dated 21st December, 2021, whereby and whereunder, the authorities invoked the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner, obviously, on the perceived default having committed by the petitioner, which was subsequently followed by an action for debarment of the petitioner. Initially, a decision was taken, which was assailed before this Court by the petitioner on the premise that the authorities have not taken into consideration various factors as enumerated and/or disclosed in the representation. The said representation was disposed of without expressing any opinion on merit and demerit of the claim of the petitioner directing the authorities to dispose of the said representation by following the mandate of law as applicable. It is undisputed that the order of debarment was subsequently recalled and/or revoked by the authorities and, therefore, the major grievance so raised was duly redressed. 5. The petitioner has now come up before this Court by asserting that though the order of debarment was revoked and/or recalled, the authorities have not expressed any opinion nor returned any finding on the forfeiture of the bank guarantee. Our attention is drawn to the orders impugned in the instant writ petition and our endeavor has also failed to find any such finding recorded in the said order. However, mere non-recording of a fact does not entail the action of the authorities liable to be impugned for invocation of the power of judicial review by this Court, unless the Court finds that the plea was raised before the authorities, yet the authorities did not take into consideration the said aspect. 6. We are conscious of the limited interference of the writ Court in exercise of power of judicial review. When the decision of the authorities is assailed, the Court shall not be swayed with the decision but may invoke such power when the process by which such decision was taken appears to be infirm, illegal, irrational and unreasonable or against any settled legal parameter. There is no reflection in any of the documents annexed to the writ petition that the petitioner, in such a representation, raised an issue concerning the forfeiture of the bank guarantee but the manifest reading of the contents of the said representation is galore to the extent that the entire pleading is founded upon the action of the authorities in debarring the petitioner from participating in the future tender. 7. Mere reflection of the fact without any further elaboration, constituting the dispute so raised, does not partake an integral part of the same. Mere reference that the bank guarantee has been invoked without any pleading that such invocation of the bank guarantee is unjustified, illegal, contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract and/or actuated with malice, the authorities are not bound to return the finding thereupon. 8. The entire issue was directed against the action of the authorities in debarring the petitioner from participating in the future tender and a conscious decision has already been taken by the said authorities in revoking such debarment and, therefore, we do not find any justification in the stand of the petitioner that the authorities have miserably failed to return any finding on the forfeiture of bank guarantee. The moment the issue is not raised or brought within the zone thereof, the decision of the authorities cannot be said to be infirm and/or illegal. 9. We, thus, do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S. Behera Designation: Senior Stenographer