[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sanjay Sarkar vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 7351 of 2026
Sanjay Sarkar .... Petitioner
Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Biswabara Dash, Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 12.03.2026
W.P.(C) No.7351 of 2026 & I.A. No.4429 of 2026
02. 1. Glaring illegality and/or irregularity in administrative
exercise of the powers are evident and eminent from the documents
discerned from the record.
2. The present petitioner admittedly participated in the tender
process by submitting the bid and was evaluated at the technical bid
stage. The document annexed at page no.70 (Annexure-2) of the
instant writ petition is a proceeding of the Technical Evaluation
Committee held on 9th February, 2026 which would reveal that the
petitioner was declared as the successful bidder at the technical bid
stage as his bid would be considered at the second stage of the tender
process, i.e., the financial bid stage.
3. The said document would further indicate that it was signed
by all the members of the said Committee and digitally signed by a
Competent Authority on 16th February, 2026 at 18:36:27 IST.
Subsequently, by virtue of a corrigendum dated 18th February, 2026,
the Project Administrator, ITDA, Malkangiri revoked the technical
bid evaluation stage for re-evaluation of the bid documents in order
to correct an evaluation error and to avoid legal complicacy in
future.
4. The moment the revocation of technical bid evaluation is
made, it will reach to the pre-technical bid evaluation stage and a
logical inference can be drawn that the Technical Evaluation
Committee will de novo evaluate all such bids submitted by the
intending bidders.
5. Interestingly, another document appearing at page no.73 is
an indicative of the minutes of the proceedings held on 9 th February,
2026 of the Technical Evaluation Committee, wherefrom it appears
that the petitioner's bid was rejected as per the Detailed Tender Call
Notice (DTCN) for non-submission of Electrical LT License. The
said proceedings is signed by four of such members and digitally
signed by the Competent Authority on 20th February, 2026.
6. Taking into account the disparity in both the minutes of the
proceedings bearing the same date, we invited the attention of Ms.
Biswabara Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC)
appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State to remove such
doubts having arisen in the instant matter.
7. Today, Ms. Dash, learned ASC hands over another minutes
of the proceeding held on 19th February, 2026 of the Technical
Evaluation Committee to buttress the stand that the date put in the
minutes annexed at page no.73 was subsequently found to be a
mistake which was duly rectified by the said minutes presented
before this Court today.
8. It is vociferously submitted by Ms. Dash, learned ASC that
since there was a mistake subsequently noticed as the wrong
document was uploaded, the document produced today is a corrected
version of the resolution taken in the said proceedings and, therefore,
a mistake should not confer any right into a third party. She,
however, proceeded to submit that the constituents of the Technical
Evaluation Committee were of the view that once the revocation is
made, the re-evaluation has to be done as on 9th February, 2026 and
for such reason the date of 9th February, 2026 was put into the
minutes of the said proceedings (Page 73).
9. We are amazed and surprised with the understanding of the
authorities in comprehending and/or interpreting the letter of
corrigendum dated 18th February, 2026. Once the evaluation of the
Technical Evaluation Committee is revoked and re-evaluation was
directed, the said re-evaluation must be done subsequent to the said
date of revocation and must bear the date as of the date of re-
evaluation. It is preposterous to suggest that the re-evaluation would
bear the same date as of the actual evaluation done by the
Committee, which was subsequently revoked by the Competent
Authority.
10. Even for the sake of argument, we proceed to accept the
contention of the authorities and we find a significant discrepancy in
the aforementioned document. The incorrect version of the minutes
of the proceedings purported to have been held on 19th February,
2026 is digitally signed on 20th February, 2026 but all the members
of the Evaluation Committee have signed by putting the date as of 9th
February, 2026. The subsequent minutes produced today is a replica
of the said minutes of the proceedings appearing at page no.73 of the
instant writ petition which bears the date of 19th February, 2026 and
the digital signature is also conspicuously absent therein.
11. We invited the attention of Ms. Dash, learned ASC on the
importance and significance of the digital signature to be put on the
minutes of the proceedings which according to her relates to
uploading of the document. In other words, unless the minutes are
digitally signed, the same cannot be uploaded on the portal. If we
take such version to be the procedure adopted in such parlance, the
minutes produced today does not contain any digital signature and it
can be reasonably inferred that the said minutes have never been
uploaded on the website.
12. After noticing the aforesaid significant discrepancy, we
have a reasonable doubt on the genuinity and the authenticity of the
minutes of the proceedings produced today and we would not be
wrong in perceiving that the authorities have acted arbitrarily,
whimsically, irrationally and to avoid the participation of the
petitioner. If the Court finds a prima facie case having made out,
creating a reasonable doubt on the conduct and the act of the
authorities, the Court should not shut its eyes to such things but
should protect the interest of the litigant pending and final
adjudication to be made. We are conscious that the authorities must
be given adequate opportunity to defend and, therefore, the Court
permits them to file counter affidavit within two weeks from date.
Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed by the petitioner within a week
thereafter.
13. Since a prima facie case is made out, we, therefore, restrain
the opposite parties-authorities from proceeding any further on the
basis of the said DTCN until further order of this Court.
14. List this matter on 9th April, 2026.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S. Behera
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:20:10
