The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16475 of 2025 Pancha Barla …. Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra, Sr. Advocate being assisted by Ms. Sakshi Rout, Advocate Petitioner State of Odisha & others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 19.06.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Questioning publication of the final result on 13.05.2025 in connection with Tender Call Notice No.3 of 2024-25, dated 13.03.2025 with respect to work enumerated at Sl. No.12, i.e., “Construction of G.P.L.F. Office Building with Market Complex at Meghdega GP Level” (Annexure-4), whereby the final result published on 21.04.2025 stood reviewed, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition with the following prayer(s):- “Therefore, in light of issues raised, arguments advanced, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: a. Admit the writ petition and issue notice to the Opp. Parties by calling upon them to file show cause and call for the records; And Set aside the Notification bearing No.1988 dated:- 13.05.2025 published by the BDO, Tangarpali Panchayat Samiti for cancelling the name of the petitioner for the Tender work under Sl. No.12 of the Tender Call Notice No.03 of 2024-25 for Construction of GPLF building at market Complex, Meghdega. b. Page 1 of 4 c. d. the Opp.Party No.6, Direct i.e., BDO, Tangarpali Panchayat Samiti not to conduct any further bidding or tender call in respect of the Tender work under Sl. No.12 of for the Tender Call Notice No.03 of 2024-25 construction of GPLF building at market Complex, Meghdega, which is placed in Sl. No.2 of the Tender Call Notice No.02 of 2025-26 dated:- 03.06.2025 till disposal of the present writ application And Pass any other Writ/Writs and order(s) / direction (s) that your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.” 3. It is submitted by Sri Surya Prasad Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sakshi Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was declared L-1 bidder on 21.04.2025. It was well within the knowledge of the Tendering Committee that other two participants were disqualified at the stage of opening of technical bid. Notwithstanding such fact, the Tendering Committee opened the financial bid and found the petitioner as the successful bidder. It is vehemently contested that the result declaring the petitioner as L-1 bidder could not have been subsequently reviewed by cancelling the tender itself holding the petitioner as “single bidder”. He has taken assistance of Rule-29 of Appendix-IX of O.P.W.D. Code (Volume-II) to buttress his argument that the single bidder ought to have been discarded at the stage of technical bid, but under no circumstance it could be done after opening of the financial bid. He further argued that the Authorities should not have floated fresh tender/advertisement, being Tender Call Notice No.2 of 2025-26, dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-9) for the said work after opening the financial bid and declaring the petitioner as L-1 bidder. The subsequent decision taken on 13.05.2025 nullifying the result declared on 21.04.2025 would tantamount to review, which is impermissible in law. In sum and substance, Sri Surya Prasad Mishra, Page 2 of 4 learned Senior Advocate submitted that despite it was within knowledge of the authorities that the petitioner is single bidder at the stage of technical bid, the opening of financial bid and thereby reviewing the final result would ensue serious prejudice to the detriment of the petitioner. It would be difficult on the part of the petitioner to compete with others by allowing it to participate again in response to the Tender Call Notice No.2 of 2025-226 vide Letter No.3104, dated 03.06.2025 issued by the Panchayat Samiti Office, Tangarpali, Sundargarh, as its financial bid is already disclosed to everyone. 4. Sri Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State did not dispute the fact that no review power is vested with the Authorities, yet he submitted that on the complaint of one Sri Rajkishore Bhattacharya with respect to work enumerated against Sl. No.7 of the Tender Call Notice dated 13.03.2025, all the works against other serial numbers were also re-verified on 13.05.2025. The Authorities found the petitioner as against the work related to Sl. No.12 as successful but it was a “single bidder” as other two bidders were disqualified. Therefore, he contended that no flaw could be imputed against the action of the Authorities in bringing out the Tender Call Notice No.2 of 2025-26, dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-9). 5. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The fact that the petitioner was declared L-1 bidder in the result sheet dated 21.04.2025 in connection with Tender Call Notice No.3 of 2024-25 is not disputed. However, on re-verification, as the Authorities realized the mistake that the work against Sl. No.12 was a single bidder, they have cancelled the tender and floated further tender vide Tender Call Notice No.2 of 2025-26, dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-9). However, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite parties-State conceded the position that when the Authorities could find Page 3 of 4 on opening the technical bid that the work mentioned against Sl. No.12 was “single bidder”, they should not have opened the financial bid. 7. Be that as it may, it is pointed out at the Bar that the petitioner has submitted representations on dated 21.05.2025 before the Chief Development Officer-cum-EO, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh (opposite party no.3) and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sundargarh (opposite party no.2) setting out the grievance. It is submitted that the said representations are pending consideration. 8. In view of such position, without entering into any controversy with respect to facts and expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to direct the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Sundargarh (opposite party no.2) and the Chief Development Officer-cum-EO, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh (opposite party no.3) to dispose of the representations as expeditiously as possible before finalization of the Tender Call Notice No.2 of 2025-26, vide Letter No.3104, dated 03.06.2025, by passing a reasoned order and decision taken thereon be communicated to the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. MRS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANORANJAN SAMAL Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 20-Jun-2025 11:27:39 (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Page 4 of 4