JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R. M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No.4987/2025; WP(C) No.5168/2025; WP(C) No.5183/2025 and WP(C) No.5245/2025. Mr. B. Chetri, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No.5406/2025; Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No.5532/2025; Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No.5574/2025 and Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions pertains to whether the petitioners herein could be debarred from participation in the tender process for procurement of Free School Uniforms to all children from Class I to Class VIII of Government/Provincialized L.P., U.P. and Composite Schools, (Elementary Level) by School Managing Committee (SMS)/School Management Development Committee (SMDC) on the basis of the Guidelines issued on 08.08.2025. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, it is the case of the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions that they supplied school uniforms for the years 2023-24 and 2024-25. Pursuant to such supply made by the petitioners, the Officer on Special Duty, Samagra Shiksha, Assam, had submitted a report on 20.03.2025 on the basis of certain laboratory reports. In the said report it was mentioned that 57 numbers of items in Darrang District; 27 numbers of items in Dima Hasao; 44 numbers of items in Hojai District; 8 numbers of items in Kamrup (Metro); 57 numbers of items in Morigaon; 43 numbers of items in Nalbari and 11 numbers of items in Karbi Anglong District were found as per the specifications of the Guidelines stipulated in the School Uniform for the financial year 2024-25. It was further mentioned that 18 numbers of items in Darrang District; 6 numbers of items in Dima Hasao; 11 numbers of items in Hojai; 2 numbers of items in Kamrup (Metro); 12 numbers of items in Morigaon and 14 numbers of items in Nalbari were found not as per the specifications stipulated in the Guidelines on School Uniform for the financial year 2024-25. A request was made to communicate with the concerned schools for directing the vendors/suppliers on the basis of the lab test reports, to arrange replacement of the items. A request was made to communicate with the concerned schools for directing the vendors/suppliers on the basis of the lab test reports, to arrange replacement of the items. The enclosure to the said communication dated 20.03.2025 contains the list of vendors whose lab test reports were not as per specifications. 4. It is an admitted fact that the names of the petitioners were mentioned in the said enclosure to the report dated 20.03.2025. 5. The records further reveal that every year for supply of school uniforms, the Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha Mission, Assam issues Guidelines for procurement and distribution of School Uniforms. 6. Sub-Clause (10) of Clause I of the Guidelines which were issued on 04.12.2024 stipulates that if the materials of a particular batch/lot supplied by any bidder fails in its testing, then payment would not be made to the supplier against the particular lot/batch supplied to all schools, and the supplier shall be debarred from supply of uniform for the next three years. The Sub-Clause (10) of the Guidelines being relevant and specifically referred to by the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents during his argument is reproduced herein under:- “10. If the materials of a particular batch/lot supplied by any bidder fails in its testing, then payments will not be made to the supplier against that particular lot/batch supplied to all the schools and the supplier shall be debarred for supply of uniform for next 3 (three) years.” 7. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of Sub-Clause (23) of Clause I of the Guidelines dated 04.12.2024 which empowers the Mission Director/ the District Commissioner the right to test the quality of uniform at any point and it is also mandated that such test results would be final. However, actions in pursuance thereto can also be taken by SMC/SMDC against all such vendors including blacklisting the firms for three years. Clause 23 being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “23. Mission Director/District Commissioner shall have the right to test the quality of uniform at any point and the test result will be final. Action will be taken by SMC/SMDC against all such vendors including blacklisting the firms for 3 (three) years.” 8. Clause 23 being relevant is reproduced herein under:- “23. Mission Director/District Commissioner shall have the right to test the quality of uniform at any point and the test result will be final. Action will be taken by SMC/SMDC against all such vendors including blacklisting the firms for 3 (three) years.” 8. In the backdrop of the above, this Court further finds it also relevant to take note of that on 25.07.2025, a meeting was held in relation to free school uniform for students of Class I to Class VIII. In the said Minutes of the Meeting, certain decisions were taken. The decisions being relevant for the purpose of the present dispute are reproduced herein under: “After threadbare discussion, the meeting unanimously decided that: 1. The colour of uniform will be changed to avoid the use of previous substandard materials. The colour of the uniform to be provided to the student to be used for the academic year 2026-27, will be as shown in the presentation and also samples of uniforms shown physically in the meeting. 2. The vendors who have supplied substandard quality of uniform during the year 2023-24 and 2024-25 shall not be considered to participate in the tendering process and also in quotation process in this year for supply of uniform. 3. Vendors shall have to register themselves in “Shiksha Setu” portal afresh. Only those vendors who are registered in Shiksha Setu will be allowed to participate in the tendering process. Samagra Shiksha Axom will make provision for registration of vendors in Shiksha Setu Portal. 4. The vendors who have GSTIN registration number prior to 01/04/2024 shall be eligible for participation in the tendering and quotation process for supply of School uniform.” 9. Pursuant thereto, a set of guidelines were again issued by the Director, Mission Director, Samagra Shiksha dated 08.08.2025. Clause H(1) of the Guidelines stipulates certain conditions in relation to Evaluation and Monitoring. Sub-Clauses (a) to (i) of Clause H(1) being relevant are reproduced herein under:- “a) The School will invite Quotation/Open Tender by following the provision of Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017 and Assam Public Procurement Rule, 2020. (b) The School will publish the tender document in the State Public Procurement Portal (SPPP) if the value of bid is more than Rs 1.00 Lakh. (c) Only those vendors who are registered in Siksha Setu will be allowed to participate in the tendering process. (b) The School will publish the tender document in the State Public Procurement Portal (SPPP) if the value of bid is more than Rs 1.00 Lakh. (c) Only those vendors who are registered in Siksha Setu will be allowed to participate in the tendering process. (d) The vendors who were blacklisted due to supply of substandard quality of uniform during the year 2023-24 and 2024-25 shall not be considered to participate in the tendering process and also in quotation process. (e) Timeline to be fixed that the work orders are issued within 31st August, 2025 in case of the Short Quotation and within 15th September, 2025 in case of open tender process. (f) The SMC/SMDC will ensure that quality uniforms as per specification, colour and sizes of uniform are supplied. (g) No any advance payment to be made to any vendor. (h) The payment should be made only after sample testing report against 100% delivery of the uniform. (i) SMC/SMDC/Block/District will test the material of the sample only when 100% supply of uniform for the school is completed. THEY SHOULD NOT SEND THE SAMPLES FOR TESTING TILL THE TIME VENDOR DOES NOT SUPPLY 100% MATERIAL. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY TESTING OF SUPPLY OF PARTIAL UNIFORM. STRICT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AGAINST THE HEAD TEACHER IN SUCH CASES.” 10. From the above quoted Sub-Clauses, it would show that the concerned School is required to invite quotation/open tender by following the provisions of the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017 and the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020. If the value of the bid is more than Rs.1 lakh, the school would publish the tender document in the State Public Procurement Portal. In term with Sub-Clause (c) as quoted above those vendors who are registered in Siksha Setu would only be allowed to participate in the tendering process and in terms with Sub-Clause (d), the vendors who are blacklisted due to supply of substandard quality of uniform during the year 2023-24 and 2024-25 shall not be considered to participate in the tendering process and also in the quotation process. Sub-Clause (e) is relevant in so far as WP(C) Nos.5532/2025 and 5574/2025 are concerned taking into account that the timeline fixed for issuance of the work orders are within 31st of August, 2025 in case of short quotation and within 15th of September, 2025 in case of open tender process. 11. Sub-Clause (e) is relevant in so far as WP(C) Nos.5532/2025 and 5574/2025 are concerned taking into account that the timeline fixed for issuance of the work orders are within 31st of August, 2025 in case of short quotation and within 15th of September, 2025 in case of open tender process. 11. Before proceeding further, this Court finds it relevant to observe that the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5574/2025 and WP(C) No.5532/2025 did not register in the Siksha Setu till 15.09.2025 which was the last date for issuance of work order in the case of open tender process. 12. In the backdrop of the above, the grievance for which the present writ petitions were filed before this Court are that the Respondent Authorities have not permitted the petitioners to register in Siksha Setu on the ground that their names were mentioned in the list enclosed to the communication dated 20.03.2025. 13. The records reveal that in all the writ petitions except WP(C) No.5574/2025 and WP(C) No.5532/2025 orders were passed by this Court for either permitting the petitioners to participate without registration in Siksha Setu or directions were passed thereby directing the respondents to forthwith register the petitioners in the Siksha Setu. 14. It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No.4987/2025; WP(C) No.5168/2025; WP(C) No.5183/2025; WP(C) No.5245/2025 and WP(C) No.5406/2025 that the petitioners have been permitted to participate in the said tender process on the basis of their registration in the Siksha Setu and orders passed by this Court. It is also the contention of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners in WP(C) No.5532/2025 and WP(C) No.5574/2025 that though they could not participate as they were not registered on time, but on the basis of the communication dated 20.03.2025 and the enclosure thereto, the respondents cannot consider that the petitioners have been blacklisted or debarred in respect to further procurement process. 15. This Court further takes note that pursuant to the writ petitions being filed, the respondents have filed an affidavit-in- opposition in WP(C) No.5406/2025 and it was duly informed to this Court when the matter was taken up on 22.10.2025 that the said affidavit-in-opposition be construed to be the affidavit-in- opposition of the respondents in all the writ petitions. 15. This Court further takes note that pursuant to the writ petitions being filed, the respondents have filed an affidavit-in- opposition in WP(C) No.5406/2025 and it was duly informed to this Court when the matter was taken up on 22.10.2025 that the said affidavit-in-opposition be construed to be the affidavit-in- opposition of the respondents in all the writ petitions. It is contended in the said affidavit-in-opposition that in view of the stipulations contained in the Guideline dated 04.12.2024, more particularly Sub-Clause (10) under Clause I as well as another Guideline dated 20.12.2024, Sub-Clause (12) of Clause I, a supplier whose materials so supplied fails in testing, the supplier shall be debarred from supply of school uniforms for the next three years, and as such, it was contended that as the petitioners herein have supplied substandard quality, they were automatically debarred by operation of Sub-Clause (10) of Clause 1 of the Guidelines dated 04.12.2024. It was also mentioned that in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2025, not only the officials were present but also the Associations who supplies the Free School Uniforms were present including some of the petitioners. In the said meeting, it was unanimously agreed to debar those persons who supplied substandard uniforms in the last two years from participating in the tender process for the next subsequent two years. It was also averred that the decision so taken in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2025 (the said decision which have already been quoted herein above) have resulted in Sub-Clause (c) and Sub-Clause (d) of Clause H(1) of the Guidelines dated 08.08.2025. 16. In the backdrop of the said aforementioned pleadings, this Court had duly heard the learned counsels who represent the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents. SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS 17. Leading the argument on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the very language of Clause H1(d) stipulates that it is only when a supplier had been blacklisted for supply of substandard uniforms in the year 2023-24 and 2024-25, he/she/it shall not be permitted to participate. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the very clause presupposes that there has to be an order of blacklisting. The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the very clause presupposes that there has to be an order of blacklisting. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that for a supplier to be blacklisted, the same has to be preceded by way of a notice, giving an opportunity to the supplier to reply as well as a hearing, if so necessary. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no such notice issued for any proceedings initiated for blacklisting. Even there is no order of blacklisting, and as such, the action on the part of the respondents in not registering the petitioners in the Siksha Setu amounted to violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The other learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents made similar arguments. However, for the sake of brevity, this Court would not repeat the same. 18. This Court, however, finds it also relevant to take note of the submission of Mr. B. Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.5574/2025 who submitted that the test report which was supplied to the petitioners categorically mentioned that the quality of the goods so supplied by the petitioners were totally accepted, and as such, the Respondent Authorities were not justified in not registering the petitioners in the Siksha Setu Portal. 19. Per contra, Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the Sub-Clause(10) of Clause I of the Guidelines dated 04.12.2024, it was categorically mandated that if there is substandard quality of uniform supply, the supplier would be debarred. The petitioners herein who have supplied substandard quality, therefore, knew that they would be debarred by virtue of Sub-Clause (10) of Clause I of the Guidelines dated 04.12.2024. He further submitted that the question of issuance of a notices for blacklisting or orders to be passed for blacklisting do not arise in the facts of the present cases. In addition to that, the learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25.07.2025, it was clearly decided that those suppliers who had supplied substandard school uniforms during the period 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 would not be allowed to participate. In addition to that, the learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25.07.2025, it was clearly decided that those suppliers who had supplied substandard school uniforms during the period 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 would not be allowed to participate. Some of the petitioners herein as well as the Association wherein all the petitioners are members, were duly present, and as such, they cannot be permitted to file the writ petition challenging that the respondents had not registered them in the Sikha Setu. In addition to that, the learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the petitioners very well knew that they have already been debarred in as much as they have challenged the enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025, and as such, the petitioners cannot contend now that they have not been blacklisted. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 20. In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment, this Court has duly referred to Sub-Clause (10) and Sub-Clause (23) of Clause I of the Guidelines dated 04.12.2024. In terms with Sub-Clause (10), if the bidders fail in the testing of the supplied materials, not only payments would not be made, but the suppliers would also be debarred for supply of uniform for the next three years. It is also very important to take note of that Sub-Clause (23) of Clause I stipulates that if the quality of the material supplied did not meet the tests carried out, action would be taken by the SMC/SMDC against such vendors, including blacklisting the suppliers for three years. 21. The learned Additional Advocate General though submitted that the debarment and blacklisting are one and the same and if that be so then in terms with Sub-Clause (23) of Clause 1 of the Guidelines dated 04.12.2024, it is the SMC/SMDC who can blacklist the suppliers for three years. 22. Be that as it may, this Court find it very relevant to observe that in order to debar as well as blacklist a supplier as per the settled principles in law, the same cannot be automatic. There is something more required to be done for the purpose of debarring or blacklisting a supplier, i.e. there is requirement of passing of an order of debarment and/or blacklisting. There is something more required to be done for the purpose of debarring or blacklisting a supplier, i.e. there is requirement of passing of an order of debarment and/or blacklisting. The settled principles of law further envisage that a blacklisting and/or debarment done without adhering to the mandate of the principles of natural justice, would be in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. 23. In the case of Gorkha Security Services vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors ., reported in (2014) 9 SCC 105 , the Supreme Court categorically observed that to constitute a valid blacklisting order, a show cause notice is required thereby spelling out the allegations so that the noticee is in a position to understand the contents thereof and reply. It is only thereupon, after taking into account, if the reply submitted is not satisfactory or no reply is submitted, an order can be passed for blacklisting. 24. In the instant case, it is apparent that there is no order of blacklisting, that too preceded by a proceedings initiated for blacklisting. The enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025 under no circumstances can be construed to be a blacklisting order valid in the eyes of law. Now coming back to the Guidelines dated 08.08.2025, more particularly Clause H1(b), it is specifically mentioned that only those vendors who are blacklisted due to supply of substandard quality of uniform during the year 2023-24 and 2024-25 shall not be considered to participate in the tendering process and also in the quotation process. 25. In the instant cases as there are no order(s) of blacklisting the petitioners by adopting a procedure for blacklisting as per the settled principles of law, in the opinion of this Court , Sub-Clause (d) of Clause H1 of the Guidelines dated 08.08.2025 cannot bar the petitioners from participating in the said bid process. 26. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of another submission so made by the Additional Advocate General that the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2025 acts as an estoppel on the part of the petitioners in as much as it was unanimously decided that those persons who have supplied substandard goods during the years 2023-24 and 2024-25 shall not be permitted to participate in the tendering process. In the opinion of this Court, the said Minutes of the Meeting dated 25.07.2025 cannot act as an estoppel in as much as the same stood superseded by the Guidelines dated 08.08.2025, which only stipulated that only blacklisted vendors shall not be permitted to participate. 27. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the writ petitions also suffer from waiver in as much as the petitioners knew very well that they have been blacklisted as they were brought within the ambit of the enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025. 28. In the opinion of this Court, the said enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025 cannot be regarded as an order of blacklisting in as much as the same is not preceded by any proceedings initiated for blacklisting. 29. This Court further finds it also relevant to take note of the submission of Mr. B. Pathak and MR. R. Ali, the learned counsels who represent the petitioners in WP(C) No.5574/2025 and WP(C) No.5532/2025 that the petitioners herein have not been permitted to participate though the test report of the supplies so made by the petitioners in WP(C) No.5574/2025 categorically mentioned the uniforms so supplied were totally acceptable. It is the opinion of this Court that the petitioners herein have missed the bus in respect to the present process for procurement of free school uniforms in as much as the petitioners had approached this Court after 15.09.2025, which is the last date for issuance of work orders in case of open tender process. Be that as it may, as there is no order of blacklisting against the petitioners in WP(C) No.5574/2025 as well as the petitioners in WP(C) No.5532/2025, it is the opinion of this Court that till such orders are passed by following the mandate of law, the petitioners cannot be debarred from participating in future process. CONCLUSIONS 30. Accordingly, the instant batch of the writ petitions stand disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (i) The participation of the petitioners in the procurement process in WP(C) No.4987/2025; WP(C) No.5168/2025; WP(C) No.5183/2025 and WP(C) No.5245/2025 on the basis of interim orders passed by this Court, is made absolute. It shall be deemed that with effect from the date on which the learned Coordinate Bench had permitted the petitioners to participate shall be the date on which the petitioners have been registered in the Siksha Setu. It shall be deemed that with effect from the date on which the learned Coordinate Bench had permitted the petitioners to participate shall be the date on which the petitioners have been registered in the Siksha Setu. This Court further observes and directs the respondents herein to register these petitioners in the Siksha Setu as the same would be required in as much as the process of procurement is by e-procurement process. The same should be done within a period of 10(ten) days from the date on which a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the respondent No.2. (ii) As regards the petitioners in WP(C) No.5406/2025, the petitioners have been duly registered in the Siksha Setu pursuant to orders being passed by this Court. The enclosure to the communication dated 20.03.2025 would not prejudice the petitioners in this writ petition to participate. (iii) As regards the petitioners in WP(C) No.5574/2025 and WP(C) No.5532/2025, no effective orders can be passed in respect to the present procurement process. However, till orders are not passed for debarment/blacklisting, the said petitioners, by following the mandate of law, the respondents herein cannot debar the petitioners to participate in future procurement process subject to fulfilling the other eligible conditions. (iv) This Court has not decided as to whether the petitioners herein would be entitled to the supply orders or whether the petitioners’ tenders were rightly or wrongly rejected as the same is not the subject matter of the present writ petitions. (v) The findings and observations made herein above shall not, however, preclude the respondents as well as the Authority concerned to take steps for blacklisting or debarment of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions, if so advised, by following the mandate of law. (vi) No costs.