Authority: Orissa High Court, Cuttack

Order Date: 22 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Dharitree Enterprises, represented by Managing Partner Kuldip Kumar Agrawal (age 42, Kesinga, Kalahandi). Opposite parties – (1) Odisha State Warehousing Corporation (OSWC) represented by its Managing Director, and (2) Chairman, Tender Committee, OSWC.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No.36978 of 2025) under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution challenging an Office Order dated 15‑Dec‑2025 (signed 12‑Dec‑2025) that terminated the handling‑and‑transporting contract for food‑grain stock at OSWC’s Kesinga (Internal & RH) warehouse and debarred the petitioner from all future OSWC tenders for three years.
  • Background: OSWC floated e‑Tender No. COM/H&T/Tender/13/2025/3660 on 04‑Oct‑2025 for handling contractors. Dharitree Enterprises was the lowest bidder and received a Letter of Acceptance on 20‑Nov‑2025, requiring a security deposit equal to 5 % of the contract value (Rs 64,50,000) in the form of a demand draft or pay order, payable within 15 working days (i.e., by 09‑Dec‑2025). The petitioner, citing a medical emergency (son’s liver disease and his own viral fever), submitted a representation on 07‑Dec‑2025 requesting a two‑week extension. On 16‑Dec‑2025, after the deadline, the petitioner deposited Rs 32,25,000 (50 % of the required amount) via RTGS and requested permission to execute the agreement.
  • OSWC’s Action: The Managing Director signed an Office Order on 12‑Dec‑2025 (issued 15‑Dec‑2025) terminating the contract under Clause XI(a) & (b) and debarred the petitioner under Clause 8(iv) & IX(f) of the Model Tender Form (MTF). The order was communicated to the petitioner on 17‑Dec‑2025 by email.
  • Opposite Parties’ Counter‑Affidavit (16‑Mar‑2026): Asserted that no representation or medical documents were received before the 09‑Dec‑2025 deadline; the petitioner’s deposit on 16‑Dec‑2025 was late; therefore the Office Order was valid under Clause 8(iv) and IX(f). No extension request was deemed to have been made within the stipulated period.
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: Alleged ante‑dating of the Office Order, denial of audi alteram partem, lack of a proper show‑cause notice, violation of natural‑justice principles, and infringement of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Cited Central Vigilance Commission Guidelines (Paragraph 10.5.4) allowing extension of time in exceptional cases.
  • Legal Discussion: The Court examined the relevant clauses of the NIT/MTF, the concept of “civil death” arising from debarment, and extensive jurisprudence on natural justice, the necessity of a show‑cause notice, proportionality, and the requirement that punitive debarment be exercised only when the breach is serious and the authority has applied its mind.

Final Outcome

  • The Court quashed and set aside the Office Order dated 15‑Dec‑2025, holding that it was back‑dated, issued without a valid show‑cause notice, and violated the principles of natural justice and constitutional guarantees.
  • The three‑year debarment ceased to operate immediately.
  • OSWC was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass any fresh order in accordance with the NIT/MTF, CVC Guidelines, and the principles of proportionality.
  • The Court ordered that the decision of the Managing Director be communicated to the petitioner forthwith and that no costs be awarded.

Topics: Legal Remedy, Public Procurement, Natural Justice