The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2025 Society for Environmental Promotion & Human Resource Development (SEPHRD) and another …. Petitioners State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties -Versus- Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
and/or sub-category wherefrom we find that the total price so quoted are one and identical to the total price quoted by the petitioners and opposite party No.8. Since the service charge shall also be included in arriving at the final price so quoted, all the parties quoted the same percentage of the said service charge i.e. 3.85 %, but are at variance on the numerical calculation. According to the petitioners, if 3.85% is applied to the final price so quoted, it will invite 496,503.136 whereas opposite party No.7 has calculated that as per the standard mathematical calculation, it would go to 496,503.14. The noticeable distinction in this regard is that only two numerical W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2025 Page 6 of 7 numbers were used after the decimal by opposite party No.7 whereas opposite party No.8 and the petitioners used three numerical figure i.e. .136, but restricted it to two numerical as .13 though the 3rd numerical number was higher than five. 7. The authority was conscious of the standard formula for ascertaining the figure, and found all the petitioners and the opposite parties No.7 and 8 to have quoted the same price and to be evaluated in terms of Section/Clause 5.2 to RFP. Such facts fortify the stand of the petitioners unsustainable and/or untenable and we do not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the part of the authorities in awarding the contract to the opposite party No.7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to 8. costs. (M.S. Raman) Judge (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice S.K. Guin/ PA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Sep-2025 19:01:20 W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2025 Page 7 of 7
Arguments
: Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate & Ms. Lopamudra Pradhan, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Ms. A. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel, Mr. S.P. Mishra, Senior Advocate & Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN J U D G M E N T -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment : 11th September, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. The present writ petition at the behest of the petitioners has been taken out under misconception that the petitioners being the lowest bidder should have been awarded the contract in the event opposite party No.8 who quoted the same price is otherwise found ineligible. W.P.(C) No.24882 of 2025 Page 1 of 7 2. The tender was floated for outsourcing the housekeeping services at Government health institutions in the Mayurbhanj District inviting the bid from the intending bidders, who have the requisite eligibility qualifications. Undeniably the petitioners along with the opposite parties and others participated in the said tender by offering their bid and were evaluated at the technical bid stage. Section/Clause 5.1 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) contains an exhaustive mechanism of evaluating the bids on the technical stage on the basis of total marks of 80 which is compartmentalized in six sections where each sections are assigned the definite marks. 3. It is undeniable that the petitioners obtained 75 marks in the technical bid stage and opposite parties No.7 and 8 secured 80 marks each. The minimum cut-off mark was also fixed in the said Section/Clause 5.1 for being considered at the financial bid stage and it is undeniable that the petitioners as well as opposite parties No.7 and 8 obtained the marks much higher than the cut-off marks fixed therein, and, therefore, became entitled to participate in the financial bid stage. Section/Clause 5.2 of the RFP contains the exhaustive provision relating to the evaluation of the financial W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2025 Page 2 of 7 proposal and also the modalities in the event there is a tie. The said Section/Clause 5.2 of the RFP is quoted hereinbelow: “5.2 Evaluation of Financial Proposal The total price (exclusive of GST) as per price format F2 shall be considered for price evaluation. In the financial bid, the bidder with the lowest price shall be awarded the contract. However, in case two bidders quote the same lowest price, then the agency with the highest mark in the technical bid shall be awarded the contract. However, if their technical marks also become equal, then in that case, the bidder having higher marks which is obtained by the combined score of Sl. No.2 +3+4 of the table at clause 5.1, shall be awarded the contract. However, if two bidders quote the same price, their technical marks become equal and their combined score of Sl. No.2+3+4 also become equal, then in that case, the bidder having higher the annual average contract.” turnover shall be awarded 3.1 The meaningful reading of the above provision indicates that the total price excluding GST quoted in terms of a prescribed format shall be considered for a price evaluation and the bidder who has quoted the lowest price shall be awarded the contract. It further imbibe within itself the mechanism of awarding the contract in the event two or more bidders have quoted the same price and the contract shall be awarded to a bidder who obtained the highest mark in the technical bid evaluation. The authorities were conscious that a situation may arise where still the tie may continue amongst two or W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2025 Page 3 of 7 more bidders indicated further modalities of awarding the contract on the basis of a combined score of Sl. No.2, 3 and 4 of the table at Section/Clause 5.1. Yet, if the tie continues, the last resort was based upon the highest annual average turnover of any of such bidder. 4. According to the petitioners, the marks obtained at the technical bid evaluation stage are restricted amongst the bidders, who have quoted the same price and not to be resorted when there is a price variation. It is submitted that since the lowest price quoted by the petitioners is similar and identical to the price quoted by the opposite party No.8, opposite party No.7 is taken out from the zone of the consideration in view of the aforesaid Section/Clause and, therefore, the contract awarded in favour of opposite party No.7 is not only contrary to the said Section/Clause, but there is a smack of arbitrariness. The attention is also drawn to Section/Clause 4.3 which relates to awarding of a work order to a maximum of five districts/ other institutions despite a right being created into intending bidders to apply as many numbers of the District as it can. It is also applicable to a situation where intending bidders succeeded in getting a work order for more than five districts/other institutions, but the work order should be executed only in respect of five W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2025 Page 4 of 7 districts and not beyond it. According to the petitioners, opposite party No.8 has in fact working in other five districts and, therefore, is ineligible to be awarded a contract in the instant bid. Clause 4.3 of RFP is quoted below: “4.3 Allotment of districts/Institutions: a) An agency can accept work orders of maximum of five (5) districts / Other Institutions. However, agency can apply for any no. of districts/other institutions. b) In case an agency succeeded in getting work orders for more than five districts/other institutions as per the competitive bidding process (as per the revised RFP-Nov 2023), then the concerned agency has to execute the work order of five districts / other institution (in order of getting work order from the concerned districts/institution) within 7 days from receipt of work' order and decline the rest of the districts/other Institutions. c) If any L1 bidder of the district/other institution decline the work order, in such case the concerned district/other institution has to negotiate with L2 (L3, L4, and so on in that order) bidder of that District/other institution to agree to the L1 price and to finalize the bidder & issue work order.” 5. On a bare reading of the language used in Section/Clause 4.3 of the RFP, we do not find that the construction as sought to be projected before us by the petitioners can be reasonably inferred and/or gathered therefrom. The said Section/Clause put a fetter on the part of the intending bidders to accept the work orders beyond W.P.(C) No. 24882 of 2025 Page 5 of 7 five districts/other institutions in terms of the said bid process despite the fact that he is entitled to apply or offer his bid in umpteen numbers of the districts. Its operation is restricted only in relation to a tender process and does not stretch upon to a contract. Even if, for argument sake, such interpretation is accepted, the ultimate decision which is inevitable in the facts of the case, does not entitle the petitioners to have the contract executed for the reasons stated hereinafter. 6. Our attention is drawn by opposite party No.7 to the prescribed form containing the price so quoted for each category