Lalmohan Parida vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2877 Ori

Orissa High Court

Lalmohan Parida 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.8220 of 2026
             Lalmohan Parida                        ....             Petitioner
                                                Ms. Sweta Senapati, Advocate
                                         -versus-
             State of Odisha and others             ....      Opposite Parties
                            Mr. Sanjay Rath, Additional Government Advocate

                                 CORAM:
                        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                                   AND
                  HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
                                         ORDER

Order No.                               25.03.2026
  01.       1.       The petitioner, who is an existing supplier, has filed the

instant writ petition challenging the floating of a fresh tender for

supply of buffalo meat; firstly, on the ground that during the

subsistence of a contract, the fresh tender cannot be floated by the

authorities and secondly, the contract postulates supply of a specified

quantity of buffalo meat and since the supply has not been

completed, no fresh tender can be floated.

2. Indubitably, the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder

of the earlier tender floated by the authorities for supply of

3,28,681.300 kilograms of buffalo meat at a specified contractual

rate per kilogram. The agreement was subsequently executed

postulating that the supply would be effected as and when the

demand is raised by the authorities and till date, the total quantity of

1,33,836.2 kilograms of buffalo meat has been supplied by the

petitioner to the fullest satisfaction of the authorities, as no objection

nor any letter was ever issued on the quality and/or the quantity of

the said meat.

3. The agreement was entered into on 26th March, 2025 having

one year tenure within which the supply is to be effected. Clause-04

of the said agreement clearly stipulates that the petitioner shall

supply the said buffalo meat as and when required for the purpose of

feeding the zoo animals and the birds at Nandankanan Zoological

Park and, in the event, any extra meat which may be necessary,

should also be supplied at the same rate as approved by the Forest,

Environment and Climate Change, Government of Odisha,

Bhubaneswar.

4. A clause, though not incorporated separately, but can be

taken as an exception and/or a disclaimer to the effect that in the

event for any day or days, the less quantity of the meat is required,

the contractor shall not raise any objection nor claim any

compensation but continue to supply the requisite quantity of meat

as may be intended for by the Range Officer.

5. Since the quantity mentioned at the time of floating the

tender and also in the agreement is subject to the need and/or the

necessity in relation to quantity, it defies the stand of the petitioner

that so long as the specified quantity is supplied by the contractor,

the said contract would remain alive.

6. Though the tender was floated indicating specified quantity

of buffalo meat to be supplied but subject to the actual requirement

and, therefore, does not create any vested right into the petitioner to

have the contract subsisting until the said specified quantity is

exhausted.

7. So far as the other plea that the tender cannot be floated

during the subsistence of an agreement is concerned, we find that the

said tender was floated in advance so that after the expiry of the

period enshrined in the said agreement, the contractor who would

emerge successful shall be entrusted with the said contract in order

to ensure an uninterrupted and seamless supply of meat being the

source of existence for those animals.

8. Mr. Sanjay Rath, learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the State-opposite parties submits that the authorities

have neither cancelled nor terminated the contract, but floated the

said tender so that upon expiration of the period enshrined in the said

agreement, the contractor who would emerge successful would

continue supply of the food to the zoo animals.

9. Once the agreement contains a time period and expires by

efflux of time, we do not find any legality in the stand of the existing

agreement holder that no tender can be floated during the subsistence

of the said agreement. The contention would have been appreciated

in the event, the contract is terminated prematurely, but it does not

appear from the stand of the State that they have encroached upon

any contractual right vested upon the petitioner in this regard. If the

agreement has a limited life, the moment such period expires, it does

not confer any right on the parties in relation to the said agreement to

continue thereunder unless mutually agreed upon by them.

10. We, thus, do not find that there is any invasion of the

contractual right of the petitioner by floating a fresh tender which

would operate only after the expiration of the period of the contract

and, therefore, do not find such stand to be legally sustainable.

11. The instant writ petition is, thus, dismissed. No order as to

costs.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

Sisira

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 31-Mar-2026 12:32:53