Orissa High Court
Tripurari Sahoo vs Arun Kumar Ray & Ors on 17 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No.192 of 2023
Tripurari Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate
Vs.
Arun Kumar Ray & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
(O.Ps.2-5)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
ORDER
17.05.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. L.
Achari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.
Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner, who was opposite party no.5 in the writ
petition, has filed this review petition seeking review of the
judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.21183 of 2022.
In the said judgment, this Court observed that opposite parties
no.5 & 6 in the writ petition, who were respectively the highest
and second highest bidder, failed to perform their part of the
contract and, as such, they were disqualified, and that the writ
petitioner, who is opposite party no.1 in this review petition, has
Signature Not Verifiedalready been chosen as the next highest bidder and also given
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY affidavit to match with the highest price offered by opposite party
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court no.5 therein, i.e. Rs.611/- per cum towards additional charge.
Date: 18-May-2023 10:57:04
Therefore, in the interest of justice, equity and keeping in view
the fact that no loss will be caused to the State Government, this
Court quashed the order impugned dated 27.07.2022 passed in
OMMC Appeal No.1 of 2021 and, accordingly, directed the
Tahasildar, Gondia to take necessary follow up action for
execution of the lease deed with the writ petitioner by awarding
the "Dallar Sand Quarry" in accordance with the provision
contained in the tender notice as well as the OMMC Rules, 2016
as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 15 days
from the date of communication/production of certified copy of
the said judgment.
4. Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that there is sufficient ground for reviewing the
judgment dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.21183 of 2022,
in view of provisions contained in Rule 27(10) of the OMMC
Rules, 2016. Therefore, the said judgment has to be reviewed.
5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that
the provisions contained in Rule 27(10) of the OMMC Rules,
2016 have been taken note of in the judgment dated 24.04.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No.21183 of 2022. As such, since opposite
parties no.5 & 6 in the said writ petition, who were the highest
and second highest bidder, failed to perform their part of the
contract, they were disqualified and the petitioner therein, who is
opposite party no.1 in the present review petition, having already
been chosen as the next highest bidder and also given affidavit to
match with the highest price offered by opposite party no.5, as
admitted in course of hearing in that case, the judgment impugned
was passed. It is contended that the counsel for the review
petitioner was not the arguing counsel in W.P.(C) No. 21183 of
2022. Therefore, what was transpired in the Court room is not
aware to the learned counsel for the review petitioner.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for
the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds
that a detailed judgment has been passed in W.P.(C) No. 21183 of
2022 on 24.04.2023 and the contention raised by learned counsel
for the petitioner with regard to Rule 27(10) of the OMMC Rules,
2016 has also been taken note of in the said judgment. As such,
the counsel for the review-petitioner was not the arguing counsel
in W.P.(C) No.21183 of 2022 and what was transpired in the
Court room on that day is not known to him. The position has
already been clarified in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and
Another vrs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another, (1997) 9 SCC 736
and referred to by this Court in Governing Body of Ispat College,
Rourkela vrs. State of Odisha and Others, 2011(I) ILR-CUT-
307.
7. Since no case for review is made out by the petitioner, this
Court is not inclined to entertain this review petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Alok
