1. Our order dated 05.01.2026 reads thus:-

                   "1. We heard Mr. Gupta, the learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner.

                   2. Our attention was drawn to the letter dated 21/11/2025 addressed by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer, Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi. The letter reads thus:

                   "With reference to the show cause notice received vide aforementioned letter dated 21.11.2025, we wish to submit the following factual and categorical responses for your kind consideration:

                   1. It is stated that B AND R was justified in submitting the undertaking, as per Annexure-II of the RFP documents, declaring that B AND R had never been blacklisted by Central/ State Government/PSUs and B AND R continue to stand by Its submission.

                   2. The referenced communication no. 36854 dated 05,09.2024, received from the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC), was in violation of AGREEMENT entered into between BMC & B AND R, and was accordingly challenged before the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar. The BMC thereafter have accepted In the court that, no blacklisting order exists against B AND R. Copy of the Court Judgement Is attached herewith for your kind reference. It is stated that the complainant has levelled false, defamatory and malafide allegations against a Central PSU without even verifying the facts, apparently intending to harm the company's reputation or prejudice the evaluation process, thereby entitling B AND R to initiate appropriate legal action against the complainant. We request that you kindly share a copy of the complainant's email communication.

                   3. In view of foregoing, it is evident that, B AND R has not provided any incorrect or misleading information in the bid document, therefore, rejection of B AND R's bid is not warranted.

                   B AND R, being a PSU of the Govt. of India, maintains the highest standards of Integrity and professionalism. We trust that this response clarifies the position of B AND R beyond any ambiguity and reaffirms our credentials and compliance with the RFP requirements."

                   3. Prima facie it appears on plain reading of the letter referred to above that it was brought to the notice of the Superintending Engineer that the alleged blacklisting order which the respondents are talking about was challenged before the court of Senior Civil Judge, Commercial Court, Bhubaneswar and in those proceedings, a statement was made that no such blacklisting order had been passed and even otherwise, such order could not have been passed as the powers are with the State Government.

                   4. The High Court seems to have taken the view that despite granting opportunity to the petitioner to clarify the position, the petitioner failed to do so. We wonder whether the attention of the High Court was drawn to the letter referred to above by us.

                   5. Issue notice returnable on 16.01.2026.

                   6. Dasti in addition is permitted.

                   7. We permit the petitioner to implead the successful bidder as party respondent no. 2.

                   8. Cause title to be amended accordingly."

2. In pursuance of our order, referred to above, the party in whose favour the contract has been awarded has been impleaded as Party respondent no.2.

3. Mr. Mohit Arora, the learned counsel, has entered appearance on behalf of the newly impleaded respondent no.2.

4. Today, in the course of further hearing of this matter, some new facts have emerged before us.

5. Prima facie, subject to further verification, it appears that the respondent no.2 was also once blacklisted. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the respondent IIT, Mandi.

6. We want the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 to take instructions in regard to the aforesaid and revert on the next date of hearing.

7. Apart from the aforesaid, Mr.Gupta pointed out that insofar as the petitioner is concerned the State has to pay an amount of Rs.7.46 crore towards the PCM charges, whereas on the other hand, the Respondent No.2 would be paid Rs.17.92 crore. This leads to substantial loss to the Public exchequer.

8. The aforesaid is one aspect we will have to take into consideration.

9. At this stage, Mr. Gupta pointed out that the respondent no.2 was in fact blacklisted, but later the order of blacklisting came to be set aside by the Delhi High Court.

10. Till the next date of hearing, the parties are directed to maintain status quo.

11. As prayed for by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s), two weeks' time is granted to file the counter affidavit.

12. List on 03.02.2026 on the top of the Board.