Orissa High Court
Shivam Condev Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 20 June, 2024
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.177 of 2024
Shivam Condev Pvt. Ltd., ..... Petitioner
Bhubaneswar
Mr. S.K. Dash, Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. T. Pattnaik, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
20.06.2024
I.A. No. 5125 of 2024
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
03.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction
to opposite party no.1, instead of opposite party no.3, for compliance of
the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by this Court and also fix a time limit
for compliance of the same.
4. Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that vide order dated 30.01.2024 direction was given to
opposite party no.3, instead of opposite party no.1, to comply with the
same, but since the decision was passed on approval of opposite party
no.1, opposite party no.3 is helpless. Therefore, the order dated
30.01.2024 may be modified to the extent that opposite party no.1 shall
comply the order dated 30.01.2024, instead of opposite party no.3, and,
as such, a time limit may be fixed for compliance of the same.
5. Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties contended that in place of opposite party no.3 if
direction is given to opposite party no.1, the purpose will be served.
6. Considering the grounds taken in the application itself and after
hearing learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 30.01.2024 is
hereby recalled and fresh order incorporating necessary correction is
passed today.
7. Accordingly, the I.A. stands disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
04.
2. Heard Mr. S. K. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.
T. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-
Opposite Parties.
3. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21 st
December, 2023 (Annexure-4) cancelling the Bid for the work
"Improvement of Budugda-Polosara PWD road to Singhasini via Sasan
upto Ganjam boarder in lieu of Chirkipada Sasan to Banapur via
Gochhabadi, Pandripada, Maa Singhasini, Maa Bhagabati and Saila Dam
road (ODR) from 10/000 km to 27/755 km (except from 24/112 km to
27/312 km) in the district of Ganjam under State Plan" invited vide Bid
Identification No.CE-DPI & R-21/2023-24 as instructed by Government
in Works Department vide letter No.21613 dated 15th December, 2023.
4. Mr. Dash has contended that no reason has been assigned by the
authority while cancelling the bid and, as such, the same has been
cancelled as per the instructions of the Government in Works
Department's letter dated 15th December, 2023, which cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention, he has placed
reliance on various judgments of this Court in Shree Ganesh
Construction v. State of Orissa and others, 2016 (II) OLR 237,
Gangadhar Jena v. State of Odisha and others, 2017 (II) ILR - Cuttack
763 and M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd. v. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and
others, 2017 (II) ILR - Cuttack 1035.
5. Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties states that he has not received any instructions,
and seeks time to obtain instructions and file counter affidavit.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
materials available on record, it appears that while entertaining the writ
petition on 8th January 2024, this Court has issued notice to the Opposite
Parties both in the main case as well as in the interlocutory application
and granted time to learned AGA to obtain instructions. Again, when the
matter was listed on 18th January 2024, no instruction was forthcoming
and the matter was adjourned at the request of learned AGA vide order
dated W.P.(C) No.176 of 2024. Today, also when the matter is listed,
learned AGA expresses his helplessness indicating that he has not
received any instructions and seeks further time for that purpose. Since
the case revolves round very narrow compass and the fact that the
impugned order does not indicate any reason, the judgments, which have
been referred to hereinabove by learned counsel for the Petitioner, fortify
the contention of the Petitioner.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned order of cancellation of bid dated 21st December, 2023 passed
by the authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law and, as such, the
impugned order is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the
Principal Secretary to Government of Odisha, Works Department-
Opposite Party No.1 to pass appropriate order by assigning reasons
within a period of three months and proceed in accordance with law.
8. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is
disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
Ashok JUDGE
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jun-2024 14:23:38
