Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
VINEET SARAN,B.R.SARANGI, JJ.
M/s.Shree Ganesh Construction - Petitioner
versus
State of Orissa and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No. 2656 of 2016
Decided On : 18-05-2016
For Petitioner: M/s. Gyaneswar Satpathy & B.P.Satpathy
For Opp.Parties:Mr.P.K.Muduli, Addl.Govt.Advocate, Mr.N.Behuria, K.Dhal, P.K.Rout (Intervenor)
Administrative decisions, such as tender cancellations, must be supported by reasons and must comply with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Tender Cancellation - Government Contracts - [Water Resources, Tendering, Contract Law] - The court discussed the cancellation of a tender for a drainage system improvement project, focusing on the technical and financial bid evaluation, reasons for cancellation, and the principles of natural justice. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with due process and providing reasons for administrative decisions in the context of tender cancellations.
Fact of the Case:
M/s.Shree Ganesh Construction, a partnership firm, filed a petition to quash the cancellation of a tender for a drainage system improvement project. The petitioner qualified in both the technical and financial bid, but the tender was cancelled without providing reasons or an opportunity for hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the tender without providing reasons and without complying with the principles of natural justice was unjustified. The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for administrative decisions and upheld the petition to quash the tender cancellation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the tender cancellation, compliance with due process, and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of a tender without providing reasons and without complying with the principles of natural justice cannot be justified. Administrative decisions must be supported by reasons and must comply with due process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of tender cancellation, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for administrative decisions and complying with the principles of natural justice.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.
M/s.Shree Ganesh Construction, which is a partnership firm having Special Class Contracter licence under the Government of Odisha, has filed this petition seeking to quash the order dated 5.2.2016 cancelling the tender for work “Improvement to Pejagala Drainage System & its link Drains in Basta Block of Balasore District under D.I.P. (Phase-1)” on the ground of non-achieving the minimum qualifying criteria and consequential invitation for bids issued by the Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Balasore in e-Procurement Notice No.SEDCBLS-07/2015-16 and Bid Identification No.SEDCBLS/ DDBLS-15/2015-16 in Annexure-5 dated 8.2.2016.
2. The Superintending Engineer, Drainage Circle, Balasore in the Department of Water Resources vide Annexure-1 invited bids from the intending candidates throughout the State of Odisha as well as out-side the State of Odisha to execute seven nos. of works. As per Clause-3 of the tender call notice, the authorities have specified the mode of bid/ period of availability of bid on-line, date and time of bidding on-line, last date of seeking clarification, date of opening of bid papers etc. In response to the said bid, the petitioner along with three others submitted their cover-I technical bid with cover-II financial bid before the authority concerned within the time specified along with required documents for qualification, information and eligibility criteria, plans, specification with R.C., V.A.T. clearance, PAN card, bid security, no-relation certificate, credentials and affidavit about the authenticity of documents. The bid documents acknowledged by the authorities, the technical bid was opened in presence of the intending bidders in which the petitioner was found to be qualified in all respect, whereas technical bid so far as other bidders are concerned, were rejected. As per the technical bid evaluation summary (at page 16 of the brief), it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has „qualified? in the technical bid and subsequently on 15.1.2016 financial bid of the petitioner was opened in presence of opposite party no.3 and other officers and it was found that the quoted price of the petitioner is less @ 12.07% of the total bid amount, consequently it is the acceptable amount as per clause 14 of the tender call notice. Accordingly, at page 18 of the brief, under the heading “financial bid list”, it has been specifically mentioned „admitted?. The petitioner having qualified both in the technical and financial bid, when it was awaiting for receiving the work order to execute the same, all on a sudden he gathered information that on the ground of non-achieving the minimum qualifying criteria, the tender for the work “Improvement to Pejagala Drainage System & its link Drains in Basta Block of Balasore District under D.I.P. (Phase-1)” has been cancelled and consequently, fresh invitation for the bid has been issued in Annexure-5. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr.G.Satpathy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order impugned in Annexure-4 cannot sustain in the eye of law as no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before such cancellation. The petitioner having been found suitable both in the technical bid and financial bid, cancellation of the tender pursuant to the impugned letter in Annexure-4 without complying due provisions of law cannot sustain and accordingly, he seeks for quashing of the same.
4. Mr.P.K.Muduli, learned Addl.Govt. Advocate for the State referring to the counter affidavit strenuously urged that the petitioner was found responsive as per technical evaluation, which was uploaded on 14.1.2016 and financial bid was opened and the summary sheet was uploaded on 15.1.2016 and on detailed verification of the bid documents of the petitioner, it was observed that the work credential of Sri Saroj Kumar Sharma, the so-called 4th partner of the firm, was not in order in view of their affidavit dated 24.09.2011 along with
