The judgment established the principle that the government's decision-making process in tender matters must be reasonable and informed by public interest, and the scope of judicial review in tender decisions is limited.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner, a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, has filed this petition seeking to quash the award of tender work pursuant to the proceedings of the tender committee meeting held on 05.12.2015 in Annexure-10 disqualifying the first lowest bidder and second lowest bidder as per clause-117 (a) of the Detailed Tender Call Notice (DTCN) for suppression of facts in respect of “Improvement of Kalunga-Bonai Road (MDR-26) from 45/000 KM to 54/000 KM under State Plan” and calling for the third lowest bidder for award of work in its favour.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that opposite party no.2 floated a tender call notice on 10.06.2015 inviting tenders/bids from the intending tenderers/bidders to participate in the tender process for the work “Improvement of Kalunga-Bonai Road (MDR-26) from 45/000 KM to 54/000 KM under State Plan” which was subsequently modified/revised to certain extent pursuant to the order of opposite party no.2 dated 04.07.2015. The petitioner along with others submitted their tender bids and participated in the tender and on opening of the bids, it was found that the petitioner is the lowest bidder. Consequently it was called upon by opposite party no.2 vide letter dated 03.09.2015 to attend the office on or before 08.09.2015 for verification of the original documents, which the petitioner complied. Similarly, the second lowest tenderer, namely, Manju Acharya and the third lowest tenderer, namely, Promod Kumar Behera were called upon for verification of the original documents, but on verification of the documents, the bids of petitioner (L-1) and one Manju Acharya (L-2) have been rejected and Sri Promod Kumar Behera (L-3) has been called upon for negotiation. The reasons for non-consideration of the bids of petitioner (L-1) and one Manju Acharya (L-2) have been spelt out in the decision of the committee stating that the petitioner has suppressed two number of works and therefore, it incurred disqualification and accordingly, the tender committee decided not to award the work in its favour. So far as Manju Acharya (L-2) is concerned, her bid was also not considered as per Clause-117 (a) of the DTCN for suppression of facts. Hence, this petition.

3. Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that the non-awarding the work in favour of the petitioner on flimsy ground of suppression of two number of works, is misconceived one. It is contended that the mention made with regard to two number of works in the observation of the committee is without any basis and therefore, he seeks for a direction that the work should be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

4. Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties strenuously urged that on the basis of the materials available before this Court, an inventible conclusion can be drawn that there is suppression of fact by the petitioner and the authorities have acted in consonance with the conditions stipulated in the DTCN and therefore, due to suppression of facts as provided in Clause-117 (a) of the DTCN, the tender submitted by the tenderer is liable to be cancelled. In view of such power being exercised by the authority, no illegality or irregularity has been committed and therefore, the action taken against the petitioner is wholly and fully justified. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and others, (2000) 2 SCC 617 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others, (2007) 14 SCC 517.

5. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 while supporting the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State submitted that since the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated in the tender paper, the authorities are wholly and fully justified in not awarding the work in favour of the lowest bidder,