The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24727 of 2025 Kaapro Management Solutions Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties Ms. Suman Pattanayak, AGA for State Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate for O.P. No.5 …. CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 22.09.2025 02. 1. Challenging marks awarded in favour of opposite party no.5 in the technical bid evaluation in response to the Request for Proposal for selection of Field Operation and Management Agencies (FOMA) for Capital Region Urban Transport vide Annexure-4 in connection with tender call notice dated 18th June, 2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):- “It is, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, call for the records, issue Rule Nisi calling for the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the action taken by the Opp. Party No.2 to 4 in selecting the opp. Party no.5 by awarding mark vide Annexure-4 as per tender call notice Page 1 of 5 dt.18.06.2025 shall not be quashed declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary; And as to why all consequent action taken by the opp. Party no.2 to 4 as per tender call notice dt.18.06.2025 in finalizing the tender in favour of opp. Party no.5 shall not be quashed declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary; And if the Opposite Parties failed to show cause and/or show insufficient/irrelevant cause, than make the said rule nisi absolute; And/or pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems just, and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; And for the act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that by way of corrigendum/amendment to the tender call notice, the authority concerned sought to accommodate persons of their favourite. The opposite party no.5 was awarded fifteen marks by opposite party nos.2 to 4 as against “transport service experience”. Raising objection he submitted that the opposite party no.4, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in its Bye-laws does not have the indication about activity required in terms of Request For Proposal (RFP). Therefore, he has urged that the award of marks by the opposite party no.5 is incorrect and depicts arbitrariness; thereby it entails disqualification of the opposite party no.5. 2.1. It is pointed out that the petitioner has information with respect to certain allegations of criminal nature against the opposite party no.5 in proximity of such tender notice. Page 2 of 5 2.2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is brought to the notice of tendering authority that out of the two projects submitted by the opposite party no.5, with respect to one of them it did not meet the required criteria. Having no requisite transport sector experience, fifteen marks could not have been awarded to the opposite party no.5. Transport sector activity being not reflected in the Memorandum of Bye-laws of said opposite party, the tender ought not to have been finalized in its favour. Hence, he prayed for showing indulgence in the matter and it is urged by the learned counsel to cancel the tender as finalized in favour of opposite party no.5. 3. Mr. Surya Prasad Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party no.5 submitted that the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is fallacious and without any substance merely because the Memorandum of Organisation and Bye-laws do not reflect the activity of transport sector. It would not invalidate or disqualify the bid of the opposite party no.5. Non-specification in such document cannot restrain or prevent the said opposite party from undertaking such activity in transport sector. 3.1. He submitted that in an identical circumstance, this Court has dismissed the writ petition by not only holding such a challenge vexatious and frivolous but also imposed cost. 4. Heard Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Suman Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Lalit Kumar Maharana, Advocate appearing for opposite party no.5. Page 3 of 5 5. Memorandum and Bye-laws of the Organisation of the opposite party no.5 has been enclosed to the writ petition, wherefrom the aims and objectives of the Organization depict that it undertakes Health Care, Education, Agriculture and Animal Husbandry, Social Forestry, Ecology and Environment, Youth Affairs, Marketing of Rural Products and Awareness Programme. On perusal of such Memorandum of Organisation, it is revealed that the Organisation in addition to the above and to achieve aforesaid objectives, it may undertake incidental activities. Such Memorandum also specifies a clause to indicate that the opposite party no.5 may also undertake all such other lawful things, which are incidental or conducive to attainment of the objectives. 5.1. It also specified therein that “both the major and auxiliary objectives will vary according to the specific need of the organization concerned”. Such being the factual details available, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in absence of transport service activity in the Memorandum or Bye-law, tender could not be finalized in favour of the opposite party no.5. 5.2. This Court having taken note of Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the case of Abhiram Caretaking and Expert Services, Bhubaneswar Vs. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.22558 of 2025, disposed of on 18th August, 2025) held as follows:- “5. The reading of the said provision does not inculcate the sense that the Society cannot alter the purpose for which it was so initially constituted, but the Governing Body with the concurrence of its Members may alter, extend or abridge any such purposes. Since the Society is Page 4 of 5 actively involved in providing such services in different hospitals, which can be reasonably inferred from the turnover disclosed by them, we do not find there is any substance in the contention of the petitioner that they cannot do a thing which the Article of Association/Bye- laws does not provide. We do not find any absolute fetter or prohibition created in the statute upon the Society registered under the said Act to forebear from doing a thing not contemplated and/or incorporated in the Articles of Association or the Memorandum. Rather, Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 bestowed power upon the Governing Body to alter, extend or abridge any of the purposes subject to the fulfilment of the other conditions mentioned therein.” 6. Though oral submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to criminal case foisted against opposite party no.5, this Court does not find any pleading to that effect. Therefore, it does not deem it apposite to deal with such contention orally made by the counsel. 7. In the aforesaid premise, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition to question the finalization of tender in favour of opposite party no.5. Hence, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Sep-2025 18:48:59 Laxmikant (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Page 5 of 5