Orissa High Court
Grismanta Kumar Meher vs State Of Odisha And Another on 21 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.32480 of 2021
Grismanta Kumar Meher .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Muduli, A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
21.10.2021
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up in the vacation court.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by a letter dated 7th October, 2021
issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Division, Khariar
intimating the Petitioner that despite his bid having earlier been
accepted, the Tender Committee decided to reject it due to the
reason that there is only one eligible financial bidder.
3. Mr. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
points out that by a letter dated 3rd September, 2021, the
Petitioner had been categorically informed that his three bids had
been selected for construction of civil works for the year 2021-22
by the Selection Committee of the Khariar Forest Division and
that pursuant thereto he provided the 3% performance deposit
within seven days. According to him, once there was acceptance
of these bids and he had also furnished the performance deposit, it
was not open to the Opposite Parties to turn around more than a
month later and inform him that his bids has been rejected.
4. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Additional Government Advocate,
apearing on advance notice for the Opposite Parties, draws the
attention of this Court to the judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in M/s.Debabrata Samal vs. State of Odisha and
others, 2017 (II) ILR-CUT-231 wherein in identical
circumstances, this Court interpreting the amended Clause-29 of
the OPWD Code held as under:
"6. The purpose of not accepting the single tender or
bid is to ensure competition among the bidders. The
exception to accept the single tender is now provided
only in case of retendering, where in the initial
tendering process also there was a single bid or
tender. Thus, the object is very clear that there should
be competitive bidding between the parties before the
tender is accepted. Merely because five tenders were
filed, it would not mean that it is a case of multiple
tenders, unless two or more tenders are found to be in
order and accepted. If the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is accepted that since there
were five tenders, thus even if only one tender was
found to be in order, then too it should not be treated
as „single tender‟, the same would not serve the
purpose as there would be no competitive bid for the
work proposed to be done. If there is only one tender
which remains valid, and the financial bid of the
single tender is to be opened, then there would be
absolutely no competitive price bidding and if the
same is accepted, it would actually amount to be a
case of „single tender‟, even though there may have
been five tenderers at the threshold, out of which one
remains valid."
5. In the present case, the argument of Mr. Acharya is that there
were two bids and therefore, it could not be said that there was
only a single tender. However, as pointed out in the
aforementioned decision, since of the two tenderers only one was
found to be technically qualified, there was in effect only one
qualified financial bid and that had to be treated as a single bid.
6. It is then sought to be argued by Mr. Acharya that in the
aforementioned decision, there is no indication that the bid of
Debabrata Samal was in fact accepted and later rejected whereas
in the present case there was a clear acceptance of the Petitioner‟s
bid.
7. With the legal position being clear that if there is only one
qualified financial bid it should be treated as a case of a single
bidder, there was no scope for interfering with the impugned
decision of the Opposite Parties rejecting the three bids of the
present Petitioner. As regards the submission of Mr. Acharya that
the rejection has caused a loss to the Petitioner, Mr. Muduli
learned AGA disputes it. In any event, without expressing any
opinion on the above contention, it is left open to the Petitioner to
seek other appropriate remedies in accordance with law in that
regard.
8. The writ petition is disposed of.
9. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik
