Orissa High Court
Raghunath Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 15 April, 2025
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.2833 of 2025
Raghunath Nayak .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 15th April, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. A tender was floated for appointment of a transporting agent
under P.M. Posan Mid-day Meal (MDM) Programme for Nayagarh
District for the period from 01.10.2024 to 30.09.2025. The tender was
to be submitted in two parts. Firstly, technical bid and secondly,
financial bid. The petitioner participated in the said tender offering the
price and also submitted all the requisite documents in order to satisfy
the concerns of the tendering committee that he has expertise in
transporting the goods. Before the technical bid could be opened, an
objection was raised by one of the bidders that the petitioner has been
transporting PDS & MDM rice for last 15 years and also working as a
President of ATMA Committee of Agriculture Department. It was
further alleged that the petitioner had been transporting MDM rice
without any tender by the DEO, Nayagarh and has also submitted the
experience certificate obtained by manipulation for participating in the
tender. The District Tender Committee meeting was held on 29.10.2024
at 3.30 PM to open the technical bid and a decision was taken to cancel
the technical bid submitted by the petitioner as the explanation
furnished by the petitioner is ambiguous.
2. At the time of moving the writ petition, the opposite parties
authorities were restrained from floating any fresh tender for the same
work, which is still operative. In course of hearing, we are informed
that the tender process initiated earlier in which the petitioner offered
his price, was cancelled by the District Tender Committee in a meeting
held on 29.10.2024 as there was only one successful bidder. Though the
order of injunction was passed by this Court not to publish a fresh
tender but it is informed to us that in the interregnum a fresh tender was
invited, which was subsequently cancelled.
3. Be that as it may, the only point involved in the instant writ
petition is whether the District Tender Committee have rightly rejected
the technical bid of the petitioner and the ground assigned thereto can
withstand on the test of reasonability. We are conscious of the
proposition of law that the writ court should be slow to interfere with
the decision of the authority whether to continue with the tender or to
cancel it, but equally, if the cancellation is preceded by any decision
creating an impunity, such decision must appear to be reasonable and
there is no fetter on the Court to interfere in such aspect.
4. The present case is a classic example of the second situation
where the District Tender Committee upon analyzing the objections
raised against the petitioner, rejected the technical bid solely on the
ground of ambiguity in offering the explanation.
5. Interestingly, the objector who made a bald allegation was
invited to produce the cogent evidence in support thereof by the said
committee but instead of producing any document, he sought for
accommodation yet the committee proceeded to reject the technical bid
on the ground of ambiguity in the statement of the petitioner. It was a
specific stand of the petitioner that he was not working as a President of
the ATMA Committee Agricultural Department nor transported PDS
rice in the previous year. He categorically admits that he had been
transporting MDM rice as per the order of the Collector, Nayagarh and
DEO, Nayagarh. According to the petitioner, the same cannot disentitle
him to participate in the tender nor the conditions of the tender creates
any brindle in this regard, more particularly, to a transporter who has
been transporting MDM rice as per the order of the Collector, Nayagarh
and DEO, Nayagarh. Even an administrative authority cannot shriek its
responsibility in providing plausible reasons in taking a decision on
rejection of the technical bid in a tender process. Right to participate in
tender is a valuable right, which cannot be curbed taking a circuitous
route not permitted in an administrative field. The moment serious
allegation is made against the petitioner that he was a working President
of ATMA Committee and transporting PDS and MDM rice since last
15 years, such allegation is to be substantiated by cogent evidence and
the committee should not have proceeded to reject the bid on the ipse
dixit of such allegation.
6. Ironically, the Committee proceeded despite the objector having
sought time to produce evidence in support of such allegation, which
does not appear to us can withstand on the reasonability test. The
decision should be reasonable and rational and should not percolate the
sense of any bias or malice. Since no fresh tender has been floated as of
now nor any transporter has been selected/appointed, we therefore, find
that the decision taken by the Committee warrants interference as it
would not cause any prejudice to any person having accrued rights
subsequently. The decision of the tender committee in rejecting the
technical bid of the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the
entire tender process was cancelled solely on the ground of a sole
bidder and in the event the petitioner is found suitable in absence of any
evidence to be produced by the bidder, there is no fetter on the part of
the authority to proceed with said tender and, therefore, the ultimate
decision of cancellation of the tender process is also quashed and set
aside.
7. The District Tender Committee is directed to take a decision on
the technical bid submitted by the petitioner afresh after giving an
opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner as well as the objector and
take an informed decision on the basis of the evidence so produced. The
decision shall be communicated to the petitioner. Since other bidders
whose technical bids were rejected and did not approach the Court, this
judgment would be restricted to the petitioner and shall not be treated as
a precedent.
8. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
( Harish Tandon )
Chief Justice
( K.R.Mohapatra )
Judge
SK Jena/Secy.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
