M/S. Rbs Constructions vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3176 Ori

Orissa High Court

M/S. Rbs Constructions vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 31 January, 2025

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              W.P.(C) No.28231 of 2024

            M/s. RBS Constructions, Special        ....             Petitioner
            Class Contractor

                                                     Represented By Adv. -
                                                  Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate
                                       -versus-

            State of Odisha and another            ....       Opposite Parties
                                                        Represented By Adv. -
                                                   Mr. S.B. Panda, Advocate
                                          (Additional Government Advocate)


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

31.01.2025 Order No.

01. 1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of

petitioner and submits, his client will not be wrong to say he was

awarded contract. He draws attention to confidential internal

communication dated 20th July, 2024 to demonstrate that his client

was found to be lowest bidder (L1) and as such, there was

recommendation for finalization of tender at Government level.

The recommendation did not happen because there stood enforced

to model code of conduct. Elections took place. On running of the

code expiring, there was issued impugned internal communication

dated 21st October, 2024 cancelling the tender, to go for fresh

tender.

2. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P.

v. Sudhir Kumar Singh reported in (2021) 19 SCC 706,

paragraph-40 (Manupatra print). He seeks interference.

3. Mr. Panda, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State and opposes the writ petition.

4. First sentence from relied upon paragraph-40 is reproduced

below.

"40. Judged by the touchstone of these tests, it is clear that Respondent No.1 has been completely in the dark so far as the cancellation of the award of tender in his favour is concerned, the audi alteram partem Rule having been breached in its entirety. ... ... ..."

(emphasis supplied)

5. On perusal of documents relied upon by petitioner, it is clear

to us that tender was not awarded in his favour, for right of hearing

accrued to him on cancellation of the tender process.

6. The facts are, there was change of dispensation and the new

Government as decided to go for fresh tender. It is not a case where

we should interfere.

7. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

Prasant/S.Behera

Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 31-Jan-2025 19:10:32