The High Court · 2025
Case Details
Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17938 of 2025 Shree Infotech, Gandhi Nagar, Ganjam …. Petitioner Mr.Ashok Das, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Bimbisar Dash, AGA CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
Decision
ORDER 03.07.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner Shree Infotech at Gandhi Nagar in the district of Ganjam has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned tender notice dated 11.06.2025 at Annexure-4 inviting bid for selection of agency for operation of Prosthetic and Orthotic Workshop and services in Advanced Rehabilitation Centres in the district of Kalahandi. It appears from the averments taken in the writ petition that the Government of Odisha in Social Security and Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Department vide letter No.1696 dated 13.02.2025 under Annexure-1 intimated the D.S.S.O., Kalahandi for functioning of Advanced Rehabilitation Centre (ARC) in the district of Kalahandi and to take steps for deployment of required manpower and optimum functioning, fabrication of Prosthesis/Orthosis at ARC in the district within seven days. The Collector and District Page 1 of 4 Magistrate, Kalahandi received such letter and thereafter, it seems that without inviting any advertisement from any outsourcing agency, the Collector, Kalahandi vide letter No. 251 dated 15.02.2025 under Annexure-2 instructed the petitioner to engage 16 nos. of professional and other manpower required for operation of ARC within 20th February 2025. The petitioner’s case in this writ petition is that after issuance of such letter dated 15.02.2025, agreement was executed between the petitioner and D.S.S.O., Kalahandi on 5th March 2025, which was supposed to commence from 01.03.2025 and to continue till 28.02.2026. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the agreement is in force, the opposite parties should not have floated the bid for selection of agency for operation of Prosthetic and Orthotic Workshop and services in ARC, particularly in Kalahandi. The grounds taken in the writ petition are that some of the conditions as mentioned in the bid document pursuant to the impugned letter dated 11.06.2025 under Annexrue-4 are not favourable to the petitioner for which it cannot participate in the tender. In view of the settled position of law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular -Vrs.- Union of India and others reported in 1994 (6) Supreme Court Cases 651, this Court in exercise of judicial review cannot interfere with the terms and conditions of the bid unless it is found to be arbitrary and malafide. In the case of Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. -Vrs.- Airports Authority of India and others reported in (2006)10 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in matters of judicial review the basic test is to see whether there is any infirmity in Page 2 of 4 the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. This means that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and he must give effect to it otherwise it may result in illegality. The principle of "judicial review" cannot be denied even in contractual matters or matters in which the Government exercises its contractual powers, but judicial review is intended to prevent arbitrariness and it must be exercised in larger public interest. In Montecarlo Ltd. –Vrs-. NTPC Ltd. reported in (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 272, it has been held that exercise of power of judicial review would be called for if the approach is arbitrary or malafide or procedure adopted is meant to favour one. The decision making process should clearly show that the said maladies are kept at bay. But where a decision is taken that is manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender document or subserves the purpose for which the tender is floated, the Court should follow the principle of restraint. Technical evaluation or comparison by the court would be impermissible. The principle that is applied to scan and understand an ordinary instrument relatable to contract in other spheres has to be treated differently than interpreting and appreciating tender documents relating to technical works and projects requiring special skills. The owner should be allowed to carry out the purpose and there has to be allowance of free play in the joints. In Reliance Telecom Ltd. and another -Vrs.- Union of India and others reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 269 referring the cases of Michigan Rubber (India) Limited -Vrs.- State of Karnataka and reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216, Jagdish Mandal -Vrs.- State of Orissa and Ors. Reported in (2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases Page 3 of 4 517 and Tejas Constructions & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. -Vrs.- Municipal Council, Sendhwa and another reported in (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 464, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the view that if the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very limited unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers and greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract. The Court also laid emphasis on public interest and the prudence in applying the principle of restraint where the action is fair and reasonable and does not smack of mala fide. It was also emphasized that the Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government simply because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. After going through the impugned tender notice under Annexure-4, we find that there is nothing to show that such notice has been issued malafidely or arbitrarily. Merely because some clauses of the tender are not favourable to the petitioner, that cannot be a ground to interfere with the tender notice. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit, stands disposed of. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication PKSahoo Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 04-Jul-2025 12:56:46 Judge (M.S. Raman) Page 4 of 4