A state-specific suspension does not require disclosure under a cross-Ministry debarment declaration.

The petitioner manufactured secure digital and analogue radio communication equipment and participated in a GeM tender floated by the Central Reserve Police Force for Digital VHF Repeater Sets.

Clause 35(vi) of the tender conditions required bidders to declare that the firm, its associate firms, partners, proprietors and directors were not debarred, blacklisted, banned or suspended by the CRPF, GeM, MHA or another Ministry where the debarment operated across Ministries; Clause 35(i) prohibited false or misleading declarations.

After an anonymous complaint, the respondents obtained a Government of Maharashtra order dated 13 January 2026 suspending the petitioner and an associate firm from participating in procurement by the Maharashtra Police Department during an inquiry.

The petitioner was consequently disqualified from the tender on 21 July 2026 for allegedly submitting a false declaration, and its representation was rejected on 28 August 2026.

During the proceedings, the petitioner restricted its relief to challenging the disqualification order so that it would not prejudice participation in other tenders.

Whether the suspension imposed by the Government of Maharashtra, which was confined to procurement by the Maharashtra Police Department, attracted Clause 35(vi) of the GeM tender conditions.

Whether the petitioner’s non-disclosure of that suspension constituted a false or misleading declaration in violation of Clauses 35(i) and 35(vi).

Whether the disqualification order dated 21 July 2026 was liable to be set aside.

The Court applied the tender conditions as the governing contractual framework, particularly Clause 35(vi), which required disclosure of debarment, blacklisting, banning or suspension by the CRPF, GeM, MHA or another Ministry only where the debarment was applicable across Ministries, and Clause 35(i), which prohibited false, forged, manipulated or misleading declarations.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 9 February 2026 in SLP (C) No. 5508/2026, which clarified that the findings in the Maharashtra suspension order were confined to the relevant tender and would not affect other tenders issued by other States.

The governing principle was that a tender condition must be applied according to its express scope; a suspension limited to procurement by a particular State Police Department does not constitute a disqualification requiring disclosure under a clause addressing debarments operative across Ministries.

The Court found that the Maharashtra order did not impose a general or inter-Ministerial debarment. Its operative effect was limited to suspending the petitioner’s participation in procurement by the Maharashtra Police Department.

In any event, the Supreme Court had expressly confined the effect of the suspension to the concerned tender and stated that it would not affect tenders issued by other States.

Accordingly, the suspension did not fall within the scope of “debarment” contemplated by Clause 35(vi), which required disclosure only of a debarment applicable across Ministries.

Since the petitioner was not required to disclose a suspension outside that clause, its non-disclosure neither breached Clause 35(vi) nor amounted to a false or misleading declaration under Clause 35(i).

However, because the petitioner had restricted its prayer, the order did not confer any right to participate in the present tender.

The Court clarified that the petition had been disposed of on merits, that no interim order continued thereafter, and that all pending applications stood disposed of.