[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dtl Lalbaba Rail Engg Llp vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.8154 of 2026
DTL LALBABA RAIL ENGG LLP .... Petitioner
Mr. Sudhusatua Banerjee, Advocate
assisted by M/s. Rahul Karmakay, Santosh Kumar Ray,
Antalina Guha, Abhijeet Agarwal and Abhisek Agarwal,
Advocates
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI along
with Mr. Satya Sundar Kashyap, Senior Panel Counsel
Mr. Gautam Mukherjee, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Pranaya Sahoo, Advocate, Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, Advocate,
Mr.Soumya Saratih Das, Mr.Basudev Bhaktiranjan Behera and
Mr.Supratik Acharya (for O.P.No.6)
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Saibrata Rath, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 30.03.2026
03. 1. The counsel for the petitioner vociferously submits that the
clause 1.1 under Special Technical Criteria appearing at page 180
of the writ petition is the only addition to the previous tender
floated for the same work, wherein the petitioner was qualified both
at the technical as well as the financial stage, but the bid has been
rejected or rendered invalid at the technical stage as the petitioner
did not submit the technical certificate vide Railway Board letter
No.2022/EDME (EnHM & project)/Misc.12 dated 25.11.2024.
2. Initially, submission was sought to be made that the rejection
does not come within the purview of the said clause 1.1. It is
preposterous that the bid for the same work or a supply of the
material where the petitioner was qualified both at the technical and
the financial bid, shall be disqualified at the technical bid. But after
noticing the said clause, it appears that the authorities have, in fact,
taken shelter under the said clause while invalidating the bid
submitted by the petitioner at the technical bid stage.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the said Railway
Board letter, more particularly Annexure-III, which contains the
third paragraph wherefrom it appears that certain parameters are
required to be adhered to before any procurement is made.
4. Our attention is further drawn to the counter affidavit filed by
the Railway, where they have admitted that the Fire, Smoke and
Toxicity (FST) certificates were uploaded for Epoxy flooring and
washbasin and since the documents pertaining to paneling material
which includes Fibre Reinfornced Plastic (FRP) Walls is not
uploaded, the rejection was made.
5. However, in course of hearing, it is pointed out by the learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India that it is not the FRP certificate,
which is required to be submitted and forms the basis of the
rejection of the bid at the technical stage, but the FST certificate
which is paramount and mandatory was not submitted in relation to
the paneling though was submitted in relation to a washbasin and
epoxy flooring.
6. The aforesaid stand is seriously disputed by the counsel
appearing for the petitioner and it also appears in course of the
argument that whether the successful bidders who are before us
namely the L1 and L2 have also submitted such certificate.
7. In view of such contradictory stand taken by the respective
counsels and the specific stand taken by the Railway, we feel that
such point can be conveniently decided if the tender document
submitted by the petitioner, L1 and L2 are produced before this
Court on the next date of listing.
8. Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned DSGI is directed to ensure
the production of the said tender document submitted by the
appearing parties by tomorrow when this matter would be listed and
taken up at the first sitting of the Court.
9. It goes without saying that the responsible officer of the
Railway would put a certification beneath the said document that it
is the exact and true copy of the documents uploaded on the
computer and/or the system and there is no interpolation and/or
calibration having done in this regard.
10. List this matter tomorrow (31.03.2026) to be taken up as the
first matter.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Aswini
Designation: Personal Assistant
