Tapan Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4320 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P.(C) No. 12898 of 2023
                                        And
                               I.A. No. 5945 of 2023

Tapan Kumar Samal                      .....                                Petitioner
                                                                Mr. P.C. Nayak, Adv.

                                       Vs.
State of Odisha and others             .....                          Opposite Parties
                                                             Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
              CORAM:
                  DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                  MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN

                                              ORDER

25.04.2023

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

01.

2. Heard Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 17.04.2023 under Annexure-15, in which the tendering authority in paragraph-7 has observed as follows:-

"Even if, for the sake of argument it is accepted, as complained by the petitioner, that Sri Kishore Chandra Rout, has not submitted the Schedule-G format duly filled in and not countersigned, it is a right of the tender inviting authority under Clause- 22.1 of the DTCN, to ask Sri Rout to submit the same document afresh within seven days. Submission of a fresh Schedule-G Form in no way alters the price bid and hence the tender inviting authority is legally obligated to accept such fresh document under clause-22.1 of the DTCN. For such type of trivial lapses DTCN clause-22.1 empowers the tender inviting authority to call for additional documents from the bidder concerned but cannot disqualify the technical bid."

4. Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5440 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2023. It is contended that though the petitioner

raised objection with regard to deficiency in the bid submitted by opposite party no.6-Kishore Chandra Rout and also cited the judgment of this Court in the case of Baldev Panda v. Odisha Water Supply & Sewerage Board (W.P.(C) No. 34915 of 2021 decided on 28.10.2022), but the tendering authority in paragraph- 7 of its order at Annexure-15 opined that even though the bid was submitted with defects, the same can be cured. As such, the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Baldev Panda (supra) has not been taken into consideration, which indicates that the tendering authority has acted arbitrary, unreasonably and contrary to the provisions of law.

5. Issue notice to the opposite parties in the main case as well as in the interlocutory application.

6. Five extra copies of the writ petition be served on Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties for opposite parties no.1 to 5 within three days enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.

7. Steps for service of notice on the opposite party no.6 by speed post be taken within three days. Office shall send notice to the said opposite party fixing an early returnable date.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

(M.S. RAMAN) Ashok JUDGE