M/S. Mital Infra Projects vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2965 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S. Mital Infra Projects vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 27 January, 2025

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  W.P.(C) No.27757 of 2024

            M/s. Mital Infra Projects,                 ....           Petitioner
            Nuapada

                                                   Represented By Adv. -
                                  Mr. Manash Kumar Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate
                                  Mr. P.C. Nayak, Advocate

                                          -versus-

            State of Odisha and others                 ....     Opposite Parties
                                                         Represented By Adv. -
                                                     Mr. Debasish Tripathy, AGA


                                CORAM:
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
                              ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      AND
                     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
                                           ORDER

27.01.2025 W.P.(C) no.27757 of 2024 and I.A. no.14633 of 2024 Order No.

1. 1. Mr. Mohapatra, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of

petitioner and submits, his client was successful bidder. By impugned

office order dated 22nd October, 2024, the tender was cancelled. Not

only was no reason given, the cancellation was by an office, which did

not have authority.

2. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Subodh

Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer available at 2024

SCC OnLine SC 1682. He draws attention to one of the questions

// 2 //

being whether action of cancelling the tender is arbitrary or unfair and

in consequence of violation of article 14 of the Constitution. The

question was answered in the positive. As such scrutiny under writ

jurisdiction is warranted for interference.

3. Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, there are several

declarations of law by the Supreme Court against interference. Mr.

Mohapatra prays for interim direction for restraining issuance of fresh

tender.

4. List under same heading on 4th February, 2025. There should

not be issuance of fresh tender till next date of hearing.

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge Sks