S/L 13 31.08.2026 Court. No. 25 suvayan WPA 2765 of 2026 Commando Industril Security Force Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya Mr. Emon Bhattacharya Mr. Pratip Mukherjee Mr. Subhankar Duta Mr. Sk. Md. Zayed … for the petitioner. Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharjee, Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Tapas Kumar Sil … for the respondent nos. 1 to 5. 1. The affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply filed in Court today is kept with the record. 2. The petitioner is granted leave to correct the cause title of the petition in course of the day. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ application challenging the order dated January 29, 2026 wherein the Chief Executive Officer, Paschim Banga Go-Sampad Bikash Sanstha has passed the following order: “However, due to non-cooperation, prolonged inactiveness and absence of any concrete initiative from your end, the executive of the above- mentioned Government development work has been adversely affected, thereby hampering public service delivery. Your conduct clearly establishes an intentional violation of tender obligations and is in contravention of the provisions laid down in the aforesaid NIT. In exercise of the powers vested with the undersigned as per the provision of the NIT, and particularly in terms of Clause 55 of Section D, it has been decided that: (i) The tender process in respect of your agency stands terminated forthwith. 2 (ii) You organization is hereby blacklisted for a period of Three (03) years, with effect from 30.01.2026, from participating in any tender/procurement/engagement process under Paschim Banga Go-Sampad Bikash Sanstha and or any other institute of Government as applicable. (iii) During the said period, any bid, proposal, or participating submitted by your organization shall not be entertained under any circumstances. The decision is taken in the larger interest of Government work, public service delivery, and to maintain transparency, accountability, and sanctity of the tendering process. The decision in this regard shall be final and binding as per the provisions of the NIT and other relevant norms.” 4. The petitioner is only aggrieved with the Clause (ii) of the impugned order wherein the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years with effect from January 30, 2026. The main grievance of the petitioner by challenging the order of blacklisting is that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 5. The respondents have issued an e-tender notice for engagement of service for provided for daily operation of farm, semen production units, IVF Lab. etc. at different places of West Bengal under Paschim Banga Go-Sampad Bikash Sanstha, LB-2, Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700106 on October 15, 2025. The petitioner has participated in the said tender and on January 13, 2026 letter of acceptance was issued in favour of the petitioner. 6. As per the tender condition, after receipt of the letter of acceptance the successful bidder shall have to deposit 3 Security Deposit (SD) Rs. 10 lakhs fixed in the form of demand draft/online transfer within seven days from the date of issuance of the acceptance. It is also mentioned that if anyone fails to submit the same SD and APS prior to execution of the work as per the tender rules necessary panel measures including blacklisting for three years will be imposed against the L1 bidder. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited the Security Deposit within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the LOI. The specific case of the petitioner is that on January 22, 2026 the respondents have issued an email to the petitioner directing the petitioner to submit the Security Deposit as well as Performance Bank Guarantee by January 27, 2026 within 4.00 p.m. positively. Since January 23, 2026 till January 27, 2026 there was continuous holidays the petitioner could not transfer or furnish the bank guarantee. On January 27, 2026 the petitioner by way of an email informed the concerned authority that due to continuous intervening holidays comprising of national holidays, festival holidays and Sunday the bank was remained closed for consecutive days and the bank could not be operated and he requested for extension of time. On January 28, 2026, the authorities have further directed the petitioner to deposit the said SD and Performance Bank Guarantee by 4.00 p.m. on January 28, 2026 failing which no further extension will be granted. 8. The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has contacted the bank on January 27, 2026, the bank officers have informed that for transferring of the said 4 amount will take above 48 hrs. due to which by January 28, 2026 the amount could not be transferred and the Security Deposit cannot be made and immediately on January 29, 2026 the authorities have passed the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner could not deposit the said amount but the respondent authorities without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has passed the impugned order by blacklisting the petitioner for three years which is not permissible under law. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent authorities submits that as per the e-tender notice, it is specifically mentioned that after receipt of the letter of acceptance the successful bidder have to deposit the security amount of Rs. 10 lakhs within seven days from the date of issuance of the acceptance and as per the said tender condition if the bidder fails to submit the same prior to execution of the work as per the tender rules necessary panels measures including the blacklisting for three years will be imposed. He submits that though the letter of acceptance was issued to the petitioner on January 13, 2026, the petitioner has to deposit the Security Deposit by January 20, 2026 but the respondent authorities by an email dated January 22, 2026 informed the petitioner to deposit the amount and again on January 28, 2026 the respondents are directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount by 4.00 p.m. but the petitioner has not deposited the same and as such proper opportunity was also given to the petitioner but the petitioner failed to 5 deposit the same and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender notice, the authorities have passed an order for blacklisting the petitioner for three years. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties perused the materials on record. 12. Admittedly, the letter of acceptance was issued to the petitioner on January 13, 2026. It is also admitted that within seven days the petitioner has not deposited the said amount. On January 22, 2026, the authorities have requested the petitioner to deposit the said amount but January 23, 2026 to January 26, 2026 there was a holiday and the bank could not function due to which the petitioner could not transfer the same. The petitioner has approached the bank on January 27, 2026 but the bank has informed the petitioner it will take 48 hrs. but the respondent authorities are fixed the cut off date on January 28, 2026 at 4.00 p.m. by that time, the petitioner could not able to be transferred the said amount and on January 29, 2026 the impugned order is passed. 13. As per the case of the respondents that the email dated January 22, 2026 and January 28, 2026 an opportunity was given to the petitioner and as such no further notice is required but this Court finds that the email has been issued to the petitioner for depositing the amount. The respondent authorities are not shown any document that any notice was given to the petitioner that if the petitioner failed to deposit the Security Deposit and 6 Performance Bank Guarnatee, the petitioner will be blacklisted for three years. 14. In the case of Blue Dreamz Advertising Private Limited and Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Ors. reported in (2024) 15 SCC 264 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “Reasons and Conclusion 21. Blacklisting has always been viewed by this Court as a drastic remedy and the orders passed have been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. In Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. V. State of W. B., this Court observed that: (SCC p. 75, para 20) “20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction.” 22. In B.S.N. Joshi, this Court held that: (SCC p. 565, para 41) “41. … When a contractor is blacklisted by a department he is debarred from obtaining a contract, but in terms of the notice inviting tender when a tenderer is declared to be a defaulter, he may not get any contract at all. It may have to wind up its business. The same would, thus, have a disastrous effect on him. Whether a person defaults in making payment or not would depend upon the context in which the allegations are made as also the relevant statute operating in the field. When a demand is made, if the person concerned raises a bona fide dispute in regard to the claim, so long as the dispute is not resolved, he may not be declared to be defaulter.” 7 15. In the present case also though the respondent authorities have issued an email to the petitioner for depositing the amount by fixing a cut off date but in none of the notices it is mentioned that if the petitioner failed to deposit the Security Deposit and the Performance Bank Guarantee, the petitioner will be blacklisted. In the impugned order dated January 29, 2026 the respondents have not only blacklisted the petitioner for three years, the respondents also terminated the tender process against the petitioner. The petitioner is not aggrieved with the challenging the termination of the LOA issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is only aggrieved with the blacklisting the petitioner for three years. 16. Considering the above, this Court finds that before issuance of the impugned order by blacklisting the petitioner for a period of three years without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such the order dated January 29, 2026 wherein the petitioner has been blacklisted for a period of three years with effect from January 30, 2026 is set aside and quashed. 17. This Court has not interfered with the reaming portion of the order dated January 29, 2026. 18. WPA 2765 of 2026 is disposed of. 19. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities. (Krishna Rao, J.)