Orissa High Court
M/S Alpl & Icspl Joint Venture vs Mahanadi Coalfields Limited And on 29 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 25266 of 2023
And
I.A. No. 12074 of 2023
M/s ALPL & ICSPL Joint Venture ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Acharya, Adv.
Vs.
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and ..... Opposite Parties
others
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
29.08.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
03.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the cancellation of its tender by the authority vide order dated
26.07.2023 under Annexure-11 and to issue direction to the
opposite parties no.1 and 2 to take appropriate steps in order to
cancel the bids of opposite parties no.3 and 4.
4. Mr. S.K. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that pursuant to the notice inviting tender issued by the
authority under Annexure-1 dated 20.12.2022, the petitioner
participated in the process of tender. In the technical bid, four
bidders were participated, namely, the petitioner, M/s IB Valley
Transport, Rabindra Enterprises and Vijaylaxmi Private Limited.
So far as Rabindra Enterprises is concerned, it was not eligible for
opening of price bid and, as such, its bid was rejected. Therefore,
price bids were opened with regard to remaining three bidders and
it was found that they have quoted same price. It is contended that
M/s IB Valley Transport and Vijaylaxmi Private Limited, i.e.,
opposite parties no.3 and 2, as a joint venture company, were
allotted with a work one month prior to the present tender issued
by the authority. Thereby, opposite parties no.3 and 4 should not
have filed separate application for the present work. It is
contended that after raising objection with regard to the same, the
authority cancelled the tender vide order dated 26.07.2023 on the
plea that the petitioner is the single tenderer,. It is contended that
the order of cancellation does not reflect the same, rather it has
been indicated that "due to change in scope of work of the tender",
the same has been cancelled. It is further contended that even if
assuming that the petitioner is a single bidder, but that itself
cannot disentitle to place the work, as per clause-6 of Chapter-III
of Transport Contracts, Section -3 (Tender opening, evaluation
and award), which has been annexed by way of memo dated
16.08.2023. It is contended that since cancellation has been done
in a single line order that "due to change in scope of work of the
tender", the action of the authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and
contrary to the provisions of law. To substantiate his contention,
he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shree
Ganesh Construction v. State of Orissa, 2016 (II) OLR 237.
5. Issue notice to the opposite parties in the main case as well
as in the interlocutory application.
6. Steps for service of notice on the opposite parties no.1 to 4
by speed post be taken within three days. Office shall send notice
to the said opposite parties fixing an early returnable date.
Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified (M.S. RAMAN)
Digitally Signed
JUDGE
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 29-Aug-2023 17:53:01
