[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ncc Ltd vs Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd on 15 April, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 10152 of 2026
NCC Ltd., NCC House, Madhapur, .... Petitioner
Hyderabad
Mr. Sunkuru Sudhakar Rao, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Bikram Keshari Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., .... Opposite Parties
Sambalpur and others
Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 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
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
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
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
Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Apr-2026 18:17:38
