Orissa High Court
Sri Pramod Kumar Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Others on 3 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21081 of 2021
Sri Pramod Kumar Sahu .... Petitioner
Mr. P.C. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
03.08.2021
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through video conferencing mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. B.P.Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate.
3. In this case, the petitioner has prayed to quash the
disqualification of his bid for "Construction of 100 seated Girls
Hostel Building at Daringibadi of Daringibadi Block in
Kandhamal district" vide proceeding/order dated 16.07.2021
under Annexure-1 by the opposite party no.4 because of
typographical error in the affidavit.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the
reported case of Sri Kaustuva Sahu vs. State of Odisha and
others, 2017 (II) OLR 342 and submits that the similar question
arose before this Court and this Court has held that the wrong
// 2 //
description of the Executive Engineer before whom the document
is filed will be taken to be mere typographical mistake as
everywhere the reference has been made to the Executive
Engineer, R.W. Division, Padampur. In this case, the petitioner
was to file the affidavit before the Superintending Engineer,
Phulbani (R&B) Circle, Phulbani, but he has sworn the affidavit
to be filed before the Executive Engineer, Phulbani (R&B) Circle,
Phulbani and there is no office of Executive Engineer (R&B)
Circle. So the judgment in Koustuva Sahu (supra) squarely
covers this case.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opp. party Nos.1
to 5. Referring to the counter affidavit and the affidavit filed by
the petitioner, Mr. B.P.Tripathy, learned Addl. Government
Advocate submits that there is another glaring mistake in the
affidavit sworn by the petitioner, i.e. Annexure-5. He drew our
attention to the format of the affidavit in Schedule-F of the tender
document, referred to page 106 of the brief, where there is a
clause, which reads as follows:
"3. The undersigned hereby authorize (s) and request(s)
any bank, person, firm or Corporation to furnish pertinent
information as deemed necessary and as requested by the
Department to verify this statement or regarding my (our)
competency and general reputation"
He submits that as per Clause 49, affidavit has to be
furnished in Schedule-F and information in Schedule E, but the
affidavit furnished by the petitioner is not in the prescribed
format.
// 3 //
6. A comparison of this format with the affidavit filed by the
petitioner as at Annexure-5 reveals that he has not authorized or
requested any Bank, person, firm or Corporation to furnish
pertinent information as deemed necessary and as requested by
the Department to verifying the statement regarding their
competency and general reputation. This is obviously not a
typographical mistake. Requirement to furnish affidavit in proper
format cannot be treated as an ancillary condition.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid consideration, we do not
find any reason to issue notice in this case. The general reputation,
verifying contents of the statement and competency are essential
conditions to be looked into before awarding a contract in favour
of the bidder. So, there appears to be a substantial lacuna in the
affidavit filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the affidavit and bid
of the petitioner has rightly been rejected.
8. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(S.K. Mishra )
Judge
Bichi
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
