Orissa High Court
M/S Shree Madhab Book Store vs State Of Odisha And Another on 8 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 29361 of 2023
M/s Shree Madhab Book Store, ..... Petitioner
Cuttack
Mr. B. Mohanty, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
08.09.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash
the EOI bearing No.9690/Lib./2023 dated 17.08.2023.
4. Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that as per clause-4 of the notice inviting Expression of
Interest dated 17.08.2023, the bidder must have submitted their
publications to Harekrushna Mahtav State Library, Government of
Odisha, Bhubaneswar for at least 03 years (out of last 5 years, i.e.,
from 2018-19 to 2022-23) including list/receipt of 2023-24 and by
putting such condition the authority has acted arbitrarily and
unreasonably. It is further contended that earlier the authority had
issued notice inviting Expression of Interest on 04.01.2023,
wherein such condition was not imposed. As such, by putting the
condition under clause-4 of the tender notice that the bidder must
have submitted their publications to Harekrushna Mahtav State
Library, Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar, the new publishers have
been debarred to participate in the process of bid and in the
process it has created unreasonable restrictions for them.
Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition. To substantiate his contention, he has relied
upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Michigan
Rubber (India) Ltd. v. The State of Karnataka and others, (2012) 8
SCC 216.
5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that there is no
bar for the tendering authority to put any condition in the tender
document and, as such, putting clause-4 in the EOI bearing
No.9690/Lib./2023 dated 17.08.2023, no illegality or irregularity
has been committed by the authority so as to cause interference of
this Court. More so, putting terms and conditions in the tender
document is completely the prerogative of the authority.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner has
challenged the terms and conditions of the EOI bearing
No.9690/Lib./2023 dated 17.08.2023. As it appears, the judgment
cited before us in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd.
(supra), the apex Court categorically held that the Court cannot
interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the
Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender
would have been fair, wiser or logical. As such, in the present
case, the petitioner seeks to interfere with the terms and conditions
of the EOI bearing No.9690/Lib./2023 dated 17.08.2023.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the petitioner does not want to press this writ petition and may be
permitted to withdraw the same with liberty to pursue its remedy
before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
8. In view of the above submission, the writ petition stands
disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.
Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 08-Sep-2023 16:58:40
