Unknown vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 9576 Ori

Orissa High Court

Unknown vs State Of Odisha on 30 October, 2025

               ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

                   W.P.(C) No.25904 of 2025

 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227 of
               the Constitution of India, 1950
                          read with
                    the Orissa High Court
            Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010

                             ***

1. Samya Ranjan Beshra Aged about 27 years Son of Akulu Beshra At: Mahali Sahi, Ambikadeipur P.O.: Mahalisahi, P.S.: Udala District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757 041.

2. Harekrushna Das Aged about 37 years Son of Narottam Das At: Nabara Bahubandh P.O.: Bahubandh, P.S.: Udala District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757 041.

3. Budhuram Murmu Aged about 36 years Son of Sankar Murmu At/P.O.: Ambikadeipur P.S.: Udala District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757 041.

4. Shyam Sundar Murmu Aged about 35 years Son of Sudam Murmu At: Harisar, P.O.: Hatisahi P.S.: Udala District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757 041.

5. Bibhudarsan Behera Aged about 36 years Son of Bidyadhar Behera At: Mendhakhai, Udala NAC P.O./P.S.: Udala District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757 041.

6. Litu Lahar Aged about 35 years Son of Rajib Lahar At/P.O.: Manoharpur P.S.: Thakurmunda District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757 038.

7. Bharat Kishore Das Aged about 33 years Son of Pratap Kishore Das At/P.O.: Chipatastia P.S.: Baripada District: Mayurbhanj Pin: 757 002. ... Petitioners

-VERSUS-

1. State of Odisha Represented through

Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare At: Lokseva Bhawan, Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.

2. Director Health and Family Welfare Department At: Heads of Departments Building Unit: IX, Kharvel Nagar Bhubaneswar District: Khordha.

3. Chief District Medical Officer At/P.O.: Baripada District: Mayurbhanj.

4. Collector-cum-District Magistrate Mayurbhanj, At/P.O.: Baripada District: Mayurbhanj.

5. PRATYUSH, represented through Authorized Representative At: Plot No. A/62, Krishna Garden Complex, Phase-II Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri Bhubaneswar, Khordha. ... Opposite Parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : M/s. Manoj Verma, S.K. Jethy, A.K. Rout, S.K. Mishra and R. Pradhan, Advocates

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sanjay Rath, Nos.1 to 4 Additional Government Advocate

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra, No.5 Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND

HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Date of Hearing : 30.10.2025 :: Date of Order : 30.10.2025

O RDER

Questioning legality, reasonableness and fairness in finalizing the tender process in favour of an NGO, namely, 'PRATYUSH' (opposite party No.5) in connection with Request For Proposal for the purpose of "Outsourcing of Security Services at Government Health Institutions of Mayurbhanj District" on the ground that said NGO has no eligibility, the petitioners, claiming to be public spirited persons, approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation.

2. As is revealed from the record, Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 17th April, 2025 was issued indicating the

nature of work to be entrusted as "Outsourcing of Housekeeping Services at Government Health Institutions of Mayurbhanj District". Though as many as six numbers of parties participated, it is alleged that the decision of the Tender Committee is flawed for awarding the tender in favour of opposite party No.5 without having due regard to requisite eligibility criteria. Having not adopted fair and transparent process in course of finalization of the RFP, the decision of the Tender Committee is liable to be set aside. Though it was not the lowest bidder and its Bye-Laws (Memorandum of Association or the Memorandum of Articles) do not envisage the nature of work covered under the RFP as its aims and objectives, the award of work is totally unwholesome and illogical.

3. Mr. Manoj Verma, learned Advocate urged that the opposite party No.5 (successful bidder) being a non-

profit organization/NGO registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short "the Societies Registration Act") was not eligible to participate in the RFP, inasmuch as the work "Outsourcing of Housekeeping Services at Government Health Institutions of Mayurbhanj District" is not envisaged in the aims and objectives of the Memorandum of Articles or Association and doing such work is profitable business. Such a disqualification could not have been ignored by the

Tender Committee. Thereby the Tender Committee having awarded the work in favour of the opposite party No.5 fell in gross error in decision making process and the decision to declare the opposite party No.5 successful is tainted and violative of provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He, hence, vehemently argued that in order to accommodate favoured person/organization, the Tender Committee allowed the ineligible NGO to participate in the process. Such an action of the Tender Committee caused huge loss to the public exchequer. Therefore, he fervently urges that the decision of the Tender Committee in awarding the aforesaid work in favour of the opposite party No.5 warrants invocation of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Mr. Surya Prasad Misra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, learned Advocate appearing for opposite party No.5 submitted that the issues raised in the present matter by the petitioners claiming to be public spirited persons have no locus standi to question the eligibility of the successful bidder as they are strangers.

4.1. Sri Surya Prasad Mishra, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine as the issues raised against the present opposite

party No.5 by the present petitioners have already been decided and, therefore, on the application of principles of res judicata the writ petition is not to be entertained.

4.2. To bolster his submission, Sri Surya Prasad Mishra, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the following cases where the very same RFP, dated 17.04.2025 was subject-matter questioning the declaration of present opposite party No.5 as successful bidder:

i. Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.22558 of 2025, disposed of on 18.08.2025; and

ii. Society for Environmental Promotion & Human Resource Development (SEPHRD) and another vrs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.24882 of 2025, disposed of on 11.09.2025.

4.3. A co-bidder, Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar, approached this Court in a writ petition, bearing W.P.(C) No.22558 of 2025, which came to be dismissed on 18.08.2025 with cost of Rs.25,000/- on its being found vexatious and frivolous. Similarly, another writ application, being W.P.(C) No.24882 of 2025, in the case of Society for Environmental Promotion & Human Resource Development (SEPHRD) and Another Vrs. State of Odisha and Others wherein the petitioners claimed to

be the lowest bidders vis-à-vis the price quoted by the present opposite party No.5 and challenged the selection of said opposite party, came to be dismissed by a Judgment dated 11th September, 2025.

4.4. He, therefore, submitted that by giving colour of public interest litigation the petitioners cannot rake up again on the self-same or identical grounds to assail the decision of the Tender Committee in awarding the work in favour of the opposite party No.5

4.5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that after selection being made, an agreement has been executed on 1st September, 2025, pursuant to which deployment of more than 700 workers by issue of letter dated 3rd September, 2025 is made. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the workers have commenced the work on 16th September, 2025.

4.6. Therefore, he urged to dismiss this writ petition as the petitioners are estopped to raise the similar issues against the same opposite party qua same RFP which was subject-matter in the above referred writ petitions.

4.7. Under the aforesaid premises, he vehemently pressed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

5. Mr. Sanjay Rath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos.1 to 4-State did not dispute the aforesaid fact and the outcome of the writ petitions rendered in the contexts akin to that raised in the present writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of record, it is indisputable that the RFP relates to "Outsourcing of Housekeeping Services at Govt. Health Institutions of Mayurbhanj District". In the case of Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.22558 of 2025 and Society for Environmental Promotion & Human Resource Development (SEPHRD) and Another Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, W.P.(C) No.24882 of 2025 the RFP dated 17.04.2025 was under

challenge having found PRATYUSH (opposite party No.5) as successful bidder at the stage of technical bid and the financial bid respectively. It remained uncontroverted that an agreement has already been executed in favour of opposite party No.5 and the work being entrusted to it, the employees have already commenced work in their respective positions.

6.1. This Public Interest Litigation appears to have been filed chiefly on the ground that PRATYUSH (opposite party No.5), is non-profit organization/NGO registered under

the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and in absence of the nature of activity contained in the RFP being not reflected in the aims and objectives of Memorandum of said NGO it could not have been adjudged eligible to participate in the process of tender as profit element is involved in the tender. Qua the other ground, nothing is brought on record to indicate that opposite party No.5 was not the lowest bidder.

6.2. It is the plea of the petitioners that the aims and objects of opposite party No.5-NGO is silent with respect to the nature of work enumerated in RFP, it should not have been allowed to participate in the bid as ineligibility is attached to it. Declaring it successful bidder is arbitrary, unfair and without due regard to the ineligibility; as such the action of the opposite parties is untenable in the eye of law.

6.3. To counter such a plea, Sri Surya Prasad Mishra, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on observation of this Court made in Order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Kaapro Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. State of Odisha & others, W.P.(C) No.24727 of 2025. To fortify his stand, he submitted that in the said decided case, this Court repelled identical plea taken in the said case by referring to Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.22558 of

2025, disposed of on 18.08.2025, wherein the instant RFP was subject-matter. This Court held as follows:

"5. Memorandum and Bye-laws of the Organisation of the opposite party No.5 has been enclosed to the writ petition, wherefrom the aims and objectives of the Organization depict that it undertakes Health Care, Education, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, Social Forestry, Ecology and Environment, Youth Affairs, Marketing of Rural Products and Awareness Programme. On perusal of such Memorandum of Organisation, it is revealed that the Organisation in addition to the above and to achieve aforesaid objectives, it may undertake incidental activities. Such Memorandum also specifies a clause to indicate that the opposite party No.5 may also undertake all such other lawful things, which are incidental or conducive to attainment of the objectives.

5.1. It also specified therein that "both the major and auxiliary objectives will vary according to the specific need of the organization concerned". Such being the factual details available, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of transport service activity in the Memorandum or Bye-law, tender could not be finalized in favour of the opposite party No.5.

5.2. This Court having taken note of Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the case of Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar Vs. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C)

No.22558 of 2025, disposed of on 18th August, 2025) held as follows:

'5. The reading of the said provision does not inculcate the sense that the Society cannot alter the purpose for which it was so initially constituted, but the Governing Body with the concurrence of its Members may alter, extend or abridge any such purposes. Since the Society is actively involved in providing such services in different hospitals, which can be reasonably inferred from the turnover disclosed by them, we do not find there is any substance in the contention of the petitioner that they cannot do a thing which the Article of Association/Bye-laws does not provide. We do not find any absolute fetter or prohibition created in the statute upon the Society registered under the said Act to forebear from doing a thing not contemplated and/or incorporated in the Articles of Association or the Memorandum. Rather, Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 bestowed power upon the Governing Body to alter, extend or abridge any of the purposes subject to the fulfilment of the other conditions mentioned therein.' ***'

6.4. It is, thus, surfaced from the Order dated 18th August, 2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.22558 of 2025 (Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar vrs. State of Odisha & others), this Court having noticed the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, held

the challenge as to ineligibility of the opposite party No.5 to participate in the tender on the ground of nature of activity is absent in the Memorandum of Association/ Bye-Laws as vexatious and frivolous.

6.5. Besides this, in W.P.(C) No.24882 of 2025, challenge was made by Society for Environmental Promotion and Human Resource Development (SEPHRD) and Another against the declaration of the opposite party No.5-NGO as successful bidder on the ground that it was not the lowest bidder. This Court negatived such contention raised at the stage of financial bid after having such aspect been duly considered with reference to Clause 4.3 of the instant RFP. On comparison of the price quoted by the petitioners therein vis-à-vis the present opposite party No.5, vide Judgment dated 11th September, 2025 has been pronounced with the following observation:-

"6. Our attention is drawn by opposite party No.7 to the prescribed form containing the price so quoted for each category and/or sub-category wherefrom we find that the total price so quoted are one and identical to the total price quoted by the petitioners and opposite party No.8. Since the service charge shall also be included in arriving at the final price so quoted, all the parties quoted the same percentage of the said service charge i.e. 3.85%, but are at variance on the numerical calculation. According to the petitioners, if 3.85% is applied to the final price so quoted, it will invite 496,503.136 whereas opposite party No.7 has

calculated that as per the standard mathematical calculation, it would go to 496,503.14. The noticeable distinction in this regard is that only two numerical numbers were used after the decimal by opposite party No.7 whereas opposite party No.8 and the petitioners used three numerical figure i.e. .136, but restricted it to two numerical as .13 though the 3rd numerical number was higher than five.

7. The authority was conscious of the standard formula for ascertaining the figure, and found all the petitioners and the opposite parties No.7 and 8 to have quoted the same price and to be evaluated in terms of Section/Clause 5.2 to RFP. Such facts fortify the stand of the petitioners unsustainable and/or untenable and we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the part of the authorities in awarding the contract to the opposite party No.7."

7. Above discussions leaves with no option but to hold that the grounds of attack in the present case against the declaration of the opposite party No.5-PRATYSH, an NGO registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as successful bidder have already been decided on analysis of fact and law in the cases of Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.22558 of 2025, disposed of on 18.08.2025; and Society for Environmental Promotion & Human Resource Development (SEPHRD) and another Vrs. State of Odisha

and others, W.P.(C) No.24882 of 2025, disposed of on 11.09.2025.

7.1. The issue which has been challenged once and which stands decided should not be allowed to be reopened and reagitated in the subsequent writ petition. If such a system and principle is to be permitted then there will be no end to litigation and the judicial pronouncement passed earlier would have no binding effect and it is precisely for this reason the principle of res judicata was adopted and is applied.

7.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue of res judicata, in State of Karnataka Vrs. All India Manufacturers Organisation, (2006) 4 SCC 683, held as under:

""Res judicata is a doctrine based on the larger public interest and is founded on two grounds: one being the maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (No one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause) and second public policy that there ought to be an end to the same litigation. Section 11 of the CPC is not the foundation of the principle of res judicata, but merely statutory recognition thereof and hence, the section is not to be considered exhaustive of the general principle of law. The main purpose of the doctrine is that once a matter has been determined in a former proceeding, it should not be open to parties to reagitate the matter again and again. Section 11 of the CPC recognises this principle and forbids a Court from trying any suit or issue, which is

res judicata, recognising both "cause of action estoppel"

and "issue estoppel"."

7.3. In the case of Escorts Farms Ltd. previously known as Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. Vrs. Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 281 while dealing with the issue of res judicata it has held as under:

"Res judicata is a plea available in civil proceedings in accordance with Section 11 of the CPC. It is a doctrine applied to give finality to "lis" in original or appellate proceedings. The doctrine in substance means that an issue or a point decided and attaining finality should not be allowed to be reopened and reagitated twice over. The literal meaning of res is "everything that may form an object of rights and includes an object, subject-matter or status" and res judicata literally means: "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment"."

7.4. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited above, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable on account of the fact that the issue involved in the present writ petition stood agitated and decided in Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar Vrs. State of Odisha, W.P.(C) No.22558 of 2025, disposed of on 18.08.2025; and Society for Environmental Promotion & Human Resource Development (SEPHRD) and another Vrs. State of Odisha

and others, W.P.(C) No.24882 of 2025, disposed of on 11.09.2025. Even this Court is of the considered view that only with a change of ground, a subsequent writ petition seeking for the identical relief is not maintainable.

8. In the above premises, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(HARISH TANDON) CHIEF JUSTICE

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer The 30th October, 2025//Aswini/MRS/Laxmikant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 07-Nov-2025 14:59:42