p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 10152 of 2026 NCC Ltd., NCC House, Madhapur, Hyderabad …. Petitioner Mr. Sunkuru Sudhakar Rao, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Bikram Keshari Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., Sambalpur and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 15.04.2026 02. 1. The writ petitioner is time and again approaching this Court assailing the decision of the tendering authority in disqualifying the bid taking shelter under Clauses-2.2.1(b) and 4.1 of the Request for Bid (RFB) pertaining to conflict of interest and forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) deposited along with the bid as damages. In the subject RFB, the BGR Mining and Infrastructure Limited as well as the petitioner participated by submitting their bids but at the technical evaluation stage, disqualification is imposed against both the companies as they have a tacit control over each other. 2. In earlier round of litigation, i.e., W.P.(C) Nos.17188 and 17120 of 2023, the challenge was made to an identical decision taken by the tendering authority in invoking the aforementioned p. 2 Clauses and found that they have a conflict of interest, which was initially decided by the writ Court and the challenge was made to the apex Court by the writ petitioner. The judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court for reconsideration. 3. After remand, the matter was again considered and disposed of on 16th January, 2025 with a categorical finding that so far as the conflict of interest is concerned, no interference is warranted but in relation to debarment and/or blacklisting is concerned, the same cannot run simultaneously and in course of the hearing, learned counsel appearing for the Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited (MCL) fairly conceded that it may not continue nor there is any contemplation to blacklist the petitioner so as to prevent him from participating in any future tender process. 4. The summum bonum of the entire findings returned in the earlier round of litigation that the BGR and the NCC has a conflict of interest and the invocation of the aforementioned Clauses of the RFB is justified. Since the blacklisting of the petitioner does not appear to have been contemplated by the MCL, yet another issue arises before the Bench whether taking aid of the aforementioned Clauses, the tendering authority was justified in forfeiting the EMD. 5. Ultimately, the direction was passed upon the MCL to reconsider the case relating to refund of the EMD with further p. 3 observation that if the forfeiture may have the consequences of their disqualification and/or impediment in any future tender process, the same shall also be considered independently. 6. There is no impediment nor imposition on the petitioner to participate in the future tender as the blacklisting and/or debarment does not appear to have been imposed, yet the disqualification continued because of the conflict of interest under the aforementioned Clauses of the RFB. The authority has to take a conscious decision with regard to the forfeiture of an EMD on the basis of the disclosed material and we cannot countenance the stand of the MCL that the Committee has been constituted to take such decision as the impediment continues into the petitioner for all time to come and it is inconceivable that the said Committee would unnecessarily consume time to take a decision thereupon. 7. The earlier writ petition was disposed of on 16th January, 2025, even though, the same was challenged by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, it does not absolve the onerous responsibility of the MCL to comply with the said order, more particularly, when the Special Leave Petition got dismissed as withdrawn. 8. Since the disqualification at the technical bid stage is not specifically a centre of dispute to be decided in the instant matter and p. 4 the entire issue hovers around the forfeiture of the EMD and indirect impact in relation to disqualification or participation in any future tender process, the MCL must show alacrity in taking a decision on the basis of the direction passed in the earlier writ petitions. 9. Without making any observation on the decision of the tendering authority in rejecting the bid at the technical bid stage, we feel that justice would be subserved if the Committee so constituted takes a decision in a time-bound manner. 10. We, therefore, direct the Committee to take a decision as directed in the judgment dated 16th January, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.17188 and 17120 of 2023 within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 11. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 12. The Interlocutory Application(s), if there be any, stands disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Sisira