[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Anupam Modi vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 25 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5923 of 2026
Anupam Modi .... Petitioner
Mr. Jatindra Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 25.03.2026
02. 1. The petitioner beseeching issue of writ of mandamus to
the opposite parties to consider the financial bid for
evaluation along with other bids in connection with
e-procurement notice vide Bid Reference No.SE, MID,
DGR/06/2025-26 dated 20.12.2025 issued by the
Superintending Engineer, MI Division, Deogarh, the
present writ petition has been filed invoking Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner, B-Class Contractor, participated in the
bid for civil construction work relating to "Construction
of Brahmanidei-I Check Dam over Balijore Nalla Near
Village Brahmanidei in Barkote Block of Deoghar
District under Maty Scheme". The date and time of
availability of the bid documents in the portal was
scheduled from 26.12.2025 to 05.01.2026. As per the e-
procurement notice, the date of opening of the bid was
06.01.2026.
2.1. On 03.01.2026, i.e., prior to last date as indicated above,
an amendment in Appendix-IX appended to Volume-II
of the Odisha Public Works Department Code (for short,
"OPWD"), was brought into force by virtue of Works
Department Office Memorandum bearing No.
07764600022025/173/W, dated 03.01.2026. It is
stipulated inter alia that extant provisions of threshold
negative bid caps (14.99%) introduced in Appendix-IX,
Clause 36 of the OPWD Code, Volume-II in the
procurement of works undertaken by the Government of
Odisha and its agencies has been abolished and such
amendments would take effect from the date of issue of
said Office Memorandum. However, on 09.01.2026 a
clarification has been issued by the Works Department to
the following effect:
"As regards the bidding process in which the
tender has been floated before the issue of
Works Department Office Memorandum
No.173 dt.03.01.2026, the bid shall be finalized
as per the earlier provisions in Appendix-IX,
Clause 36 of OPWD Code Volume-II".
2.2. As the said clarification came to be issued after last date
for submission of bid, the petitioner has participated in
the bidding process by furnishing details in consonance
with the amended provision in terms of Office
Memorandum dated 03.01.2026.
3. Essentially what is submitted by Mr. Jatindra Kumar
Mohapatra, learned Advocate that though during valid
period of submission of bid documents, the OPWD Code
has been amended, the authority concerned did not
brought out any corrigendum by extending last date of
submission of bid notwithstanding the fact that by Office
Memorandum dated 03.01.2026, the said amendments
were made effective from the date of issue of the said
Office Memorandum.
3.1. It is submitted that taking into consideration, the Office
Memorandum dated 03.01.2026, the petitioner submitted
the bid in connection with the e-procurement notice
dated 20.12.2025 on the last date fixed for submission of
the bid by quoting 15.6% below the estimated cost. It is
vehemently argued that the clarification vide Office
Memorandum No.632/W, was issued on 09.01.2026, i.e.,
after the last date for submission of bid document.
Therefore, due to such confusion, the petitioner having
submitted his bid document in consonance with the
requirement as per Office Memorandum dated
03.01.2026, his bid deserves to be considered along with
other participants.
4. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for opposite parties submitted on the basis of
written instruction received from the Superintending
Engineer, MI Division, Deogarh that since the e-
procurement notice was published on 20.12.2025 by
which the date of amendment to OPWD Code did not see
the light of the day, there was no scope for entertaining
any doubt or confusion as projected by the petitioner.
The petitioner was supposed to act according to the terms
and conditions as per the e-procurement notice, but not
otherwise. Even in absence of any clarification, it is but
quite unequivocal that any amendment to the OPWD
Code would not have any impact on the advertisement
already made prior to such amendment. The authorities
having proceeded to finalise the bid in accordance with
the terms and conditions as stipulated in the e-
procurement notice dated 20.12.2025, their action cannot
be faulted with.
5. Heard Mr. Jatindra Kumar Mohapatra, learned Advocate
appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Saswat Das, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the opposite
parties.
6. Perusal of Office Memorandum dated 03.01.2026
(Annexure-3), it is revealed that:
"2. These amendments shall take effect from
the date of issue of Office Memorandum".
3. The relevant existing Codal/Contractual
Provision stands modified with effect from the date of
issue of this Office Memorandum."
6.1. Perusal of the record reveals that e-procurement notice
was issued on 20.12.2025. The said amendment in the
OPWD Code came to exist on 03.01.2026. It is trite that
once process of tender commenced, the terms and
conditions stipulated therein cannot be tinkered with till
the end of the process. There is no scope for change in
the terms and conditions on account of subsequent events
unless such condition is explicitly contained in the bid
document. Since the date of availability of bid
documents in the portal was scheduled on 26.12.2025,
i.e., prior to the amendment by Office Memorandum
dated 03.01.2026, the petitioner should have adhered to
the terms and conditions as reflected in the e-
procurement notice. In absence of any corrigendum
issued by incorporating the amended provisions, the
terms and conditions stipulated in such notice is
sacrosanct and the participants are required to follow the
same without any deviation and/or variation. The
tendering authority found the petitioner not having
submitted his bid document in consonance with the
requirement of the e-procurement notice. Therefore, it is
opined by the said authority that bid documents
submitted by the petitioner is not liable to be considered
along with the other participants, who have complied
with the terms of e-procurement notice.
6.2. The written instruction received from the Superintending
Engineer, MI Division, Deogarh by the learned Addl.
Government Advocate reveals that:
"the petitioner participated in the tender process and
submitted his bid at 15.6% below, the estimated cost
without seeking any clarification regarding the
applicability of the revised policy".
6.3. Scrutiny of e-procurement notice it is found at Clause-19
that:
"This notice will be read with all clauses/addendum to
the 'Procedure to participate in on-line Biddings'."
6.4. Clause 5 of said notice also envisages that:
"Subsequent corrigendum/addendum if required shall
only be available in the website".
6.5. Since the petitioner admitted that no corrigendum/
addendum in pursuance of aforesaid amendment carried
out in OPWD Code by virtue of the Office Memorandum
dated 03.01.2026 has been published by the tendering
authority, this Court does not find any force in the
contention of the learned counsel that the tendering
authority should have accepted his bid, which was
submitted as per such amendment.
6.6. As the opposite parties-tendering authority has acted in
accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the
e-procurement notice and having found the bid of the
petitioner not in consonance with the terms and
conditions thereof, the same was rightly not considered.
This Court, thus, finds no merit in the writ petition.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of disposal
of writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application(s), if
any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 26-Mar-2026 19:40:06
