Bikash Sekhar Nayak State of Odisha and others … v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 18034 of 2023 Bikash Sekhar Nayak State of Odisha and others ….. Vs. ….. Petitioner Mr. J. Pal, Adv. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Mishra, Adv.[O.P.No.2] Mr. P. Chuli, Adv. [O.P.No.7] Order No. 01. CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 21.06.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2 and Mr. P. Chuli, learned counsel for opposite party no.7. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the decision of the tender committee dated 10.05.2023 uploaded on 30.05.2023 in declaring opposite party no.7 eligible in the technical bid to open its price bid and making him L-1 in respect of Pattamundai block, as well as the appointment order issued in favour of opposite party no.7. The petitioner further seeks direction to the opposite parties to hold that the petitioner is the only eligible candidate to be qualified in the technical bid, as he was L-II, and he may be allotted the e-tender for Level-II Transport Contractor of the Pattamundai block for the financial year 2023-2025. 4. Mr. J. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice inviting tender for selection of Level-II Transport Contractor 2023-25 was issued by the authority under Annexure-1 by which under sub-clause (iii) of clause-1 of the General Information it was specifically provided that the bidder has to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 22-Jun-2023 13:44:19 submit the tender paper, appendices and annexures with seal and signatures on each and every page. Under sub-clause-(iv) of Clause-2 of bidding process it was provided that furnishing scanned Page 1 of 4 copy of all required documents with his/her signature is mandatory otherwise his/her tender shall be declared as non-responsive and thus liable for rejection. It is contended that selection of opposite party no.7 is in gross violation of the conditions stipulated in the tender documents. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 5. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2, referring to the proceeding of the district level tender committee meeting for opening of financial bid for selection and appointment of transport contractor (level-II) for the biennial-2023- 25 held on 30.05.2023, contended that so far as Pattamundai block is concerned, the petitioner had participated in the process of selection and quoted 29.99% ASOR (Above Schedule of Rates), which is beyond the schedule price fixed by the Corporation. Similarly, one Gunanidhi Jagaty had also quoted 36.36% ASOR. As a result of which the applications submitted by the petitioner and Gunanidhi Jagaty were rejected, as the same were beyond the schedule price fixed by the Corporation. It is contended that the other three bidders, who had quoted 14.99% BSOR (Below Schedule of Rates), were considered and since there was tie, it was decided to go for lottery. Consequentially, opposite party no.7 was selected. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in selecting opposite party no.7. As regards the requirement of the bidder to submit the tender paper, appendices and annexures with seal and signatures on each and every page, he has made reference to page-234 of the writ petition where a seal has been affixed with regard to the name of the opposite party no.7 and, thereafter, the name has also been signed in full. Therefore, the Signature Not Verified objection raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of Digitally Signed law. Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 22-Jun-2023 13:44:19 6. Mr. P. Chuli, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Page 2 of 4 no.7 contended that opposite party no.7 has adhered to the condition stipulated in the tender documents, as a consequence thereof selection has been made. Therefore, the allegation made by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as the opposite party no.7 is the successful bidder and in the meantime he has already executed the agreement on 01.06.2023. Consequentially, dismissal of the writ petition is sought for. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that notice inviting tender for selection of Level-II transport contractor for 2023-25 was issued by the authority under Annexure-1. Sub-clause-(iii) of Clause-1 of General Information reads as under:- “The bidder has to submit the tender paper, appendices and annexures with seal and signatures on each and every page.” Similarly, sub-clause (iv) of Clause-2 of Bidding Process provides as under:- “Furnishing scanned copy of all required is mandatory documents with his/her otherwise his/her tender shall be declared as non- responsive and thus liable for rejection.” signature 8. Much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the above two clauses of the notice inviting tender to substantiate the allegation against opposite party no.7 to declare him as disqualified. But on perusal of records, it appears that the tender document, which had been submitted by opposite party no.7, clearly reveals that he has given seal and also put his signature in full, which is evident from page-234 and also page-231, 232, 233 of the brief. Thereby, the objection so raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. So far as sub-clause (iv) of Clause-2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 22-Jun-2023 13:44:19 of Bidding Process, which provides for mandatory furnishing of scanned copy of all required documents with his/her signature otherwise his/her tender shall be declared as non-responsive and Page 3 of 4 thus liable for rejection, the same has also been complied with by opposite party no.7. Thereby, the application submitted by opposite party no.7 cannot be declared as non-responsive. On the other hand, the bids submitted by the petitioner as well as one Gunanidhi Jagaty, being 29.99% ASOR and 36.36% ASOR, were beyond the schedule price fixed by the Corporation, whereas rest of the three persons, including opposite party no.7, was 14.99% BSOR, their bids were considered. Since there was a tie with regard to the price quoted, on the consent of the bidders, the tendering authority decided to go for lottery. Accordingly, lottery was drawn unit wise in presence of the bidders or the authorized representatives and media person for transparent selection of Level-II contractors and by following such procedure, opposite party no.7 was selected. 9. In the above view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the matter of selection of opposite party no.7 as Level-II contractor, pursuant to the notice inviting tender under Annexure-1 dated 20.04.2023, so as to cause interference with the same. 10. In the result, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is hereby dismissed. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Ashok (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 22-Jun-2023 13:44:19 Page 4 of 4