Stay of debarment order preserves bid responsiveness despite non-disclosure in initial tender submissions.

The Petitioner, as part of a joint venture, was previously awarded a contract for road works in Ladakh in 2021

Following a dispute and subsequent termination of that contract, the Respondent issued a termination-cum-debarment order against the Petitioner on June 12, 2025

This debarment was stayed by the High Court on October 4, 2025

When the Respondent invited fresh tenders for the balance work, the Petitioner submitted its bid but did not initially disclose the debarment order

Upon being queried by the Respondent via its portal, the Petitioner provided the information on January 6, 2026

On February 17, 2026, the Respondent declared the Petitioner’s bid "non-responsive" due to the non-disclosure in the initial bid

The Petitioner approached the Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to quash this decision

Whether the Respondent’s decision to declare the Petitioner’s bid non-responsive, despite the stay on the debarment order and subsequent disclosure of information, was legal and fair

The Court primarily applied the principles of Administrative Law regarding fairness, equity, and the legal effect of a judicial stay order

The core principle applied is that a stay order by a court of law on a debarment effectively renders that order non-existent in the eyes of the law *prima facie* for the duration of the stay

Furthermore, the court considered the principles of natural justice and fair play in the context of tender processes where clarification/information is sought and provided

The Court reasoned that even though the Petitioner failed to mention the debarment order in the initial bid, the subsequent stay granted by the High Court meant that, *prima facie*, the debarment was not in existence against the Petitioner at the time of the bid

The Court observed that the Respondent had specifically sought information regarding the termination-cum-debarment via its portal, and the Petitioner had duly provided this information on January 6, 2026

Consequently, the Court found that once the information was sought and supplied, and given the existence of a judicial stay on the debarment, the Respondent could not *prima facie* justify treating the bid as non-responsive on the grounds of non-disclosure

While the Court allowed the Respondent to open the financial bids scheduled for the day of the hearing, it directed that no further action (such as awarding the contract) be taken until the next hearing

The Respondent was granted one week to file a reply, and the matter was listed for further hearing on March 9, 2026