The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 30587 of 2025 Rakesh Kirtania …. Petitioner State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Advocate -versus- Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No.
Decision
ORDER 13.11.2025 01. 1. It is really unfortunate that a contractor has to approach the Court having been subjected with discriminatory treatment and the authorities are citing an embargo against him, although such embargo was not imposed in respect of a similarly circumstanced person. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in a tender process within the time provided therein and submitted all the relevant documents, including an affidavit relating to his status as a contractor. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was registered as a 'B' Class contractor and having successfully completed many Page 1 of 6 projects, he has been elevated as 'A' Class contractor. The affidavit submitted by him in relation to the status of a contractor was initially perceived by the Tendering Committee that a false and fabricated document has been filed. An immediate recommendation was made to block the portal of the petitioner which, in fact, was implemented on 4th July, 2025. Thereafter, immediate steps were taken by the petitioner by approaching the tendering committee and the minutes of the Technical Committee Meeting held on 9th September, 2025 revealed that the committee has considered the grievance petition in extenso and observed that the petitioner submitted 'B' class registration certificate unknowingly instead of 'A' class and, therefore, such lapses cannot be said to be fatal and ultimate decision was taken by the committee to recommend for unblocking of his registration in the portal. 3. The said resolution taken in the aforesaid meeting, a letter was issued to the Chief Manager (Technical), State Procurement Cell, Odisha, Bhubaneswar to unblock the portal registration on 11th September, 2025. Even after observing with precision, the authorities still continued to raise queries which prompted another letter dated 25th September, 2025 to be issued reiterating the Page 2 of 6 recommendation to unblock the portal registration of the petitioner. Despite such recommendations having been made, the portal of registration concerning the petitioner is still not unblocked on the premise that in view of the procedures, it cannot be unblocked before the expiration of the period of 180 days. 4. The facts discerned from the record revealed that initially the petitioner was registered as 'B' class contractor and elevated his status as 'A' class contractor and submitted the certificate which was issued when he was 'B' class contractor instead of the certificate issued to him as 'A' class contractor. The tender conditions do not prescribe that the same is restricted to a particular class of contractors. Once a tender is opened that any class of contractors can apply, it hardly creates any impact in the disability of the participating bidder, if he has submitted a certificate which was issued earlier as 'B' class contractor. 5. However, the authorities issued a show-cause notice and a reply was given by the petitioner admitting the mistake of submission of the certificate of 'B' class contractor and the Technical Committee categorically observed that the said mistake is not fatal, which would disentitle the petitioner to participate in the tender Page 3 of 6 process. The recommendation was made immediately after the meeting was held, yet certain queries were raised which were also considered by the said committee and a further recommendation was made to unblock the portal of registration assigned to the petitioner. 6. Ms. Aishwarya Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) appearing on behalf of the opposite parties-State submits that since there was a wrong information given or a forged and/or fabricated document was submitted, the authorities have decided to block the portal and the rule mandates that once the portal is blocked, it cannot be reopened before expiration of the period of 180 days. 7. We could have appreciated the contention of the State, if our attention was not drawn to page No.26 of the instant writ petition containing the meeting of the committee for unblocking of the portal of registration held on 8th October, 2025. The said document is a repository of the details and a prelude to blocking of the portal of registration, wherefrom we find that one of the super class contractors, whose portal was also blocked having furnished false and fabricated information, was later on recommended by the Page 4 of 6 committee for unblocking the portal of registration which was done within a close proximity of time, i.e., a gap of 25 days. 8. Had the stand of the authorities that the period of 180 days is inviolable or inflexible, we do not find any reason for unblocking the portal of registration within the said mischief period. The law does not permit the authorities to discriminate the person who stands on equal and/or similar pedestal. The Constitution mandates equal treatment amongst the equals and any discriminatory act perceived from the action of the authorities would entail the interference by the Constitutional Court. 9. We are conscious that the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies to the equals as such equitable principles cannot be applied amongst the unequals. The moment the Court finds two persons standing on the same footing and facing similar consequences, it does not permit the authorities to take a different decision by extending the benefits to one ignoring the so called mandate, whereas applying the same in relation to the other. The discriminatory action of the authorities is always viewed zealously and seriously by the Constitutional Courts as the Constitution ordains the preservation of equality amongst the equals. Page 5 of 6 We thus find that the authorities have acted discriminately and treated the petitioner as a step-brother and, therefore, such decision of the authorities cannot be sustained. 10. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order dated 10th October, 2025 (Annexure-1 to the instant writ petition) passed by the Chief Engineer (PI & P), State Procurement Cell, Odisha in relation to the present petitioner. The concerned authority is directed to unblock the portal of registration assigned to the petitioner within 24 hours from the date of communication of this order. Let a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court be communicated to the concerned authority, who shall act thereupon without insisting for a certified copy thereof. 11. In view of the above observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Judge (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) S. Behera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Nov-2025 12:48:16 Page 6 of 6