JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

The petitioner company, which is stated to be the single authorized distributor/dealer of GRIFOLS (formerly NOVARTIS Diagnostics), having Transfusion diagnostic business dealing with manufacturing and delivering high quality products of NAT (Nucleic Acid Testing) Proclex PANTHER system, participated in the tender process pursuant to the advertisement vide Annexure-1 dated 20.02.2014, i.e., Request for Proposal (in short “RFP”) issued by the Director, State Blood Transfusion Council, Department of Health & Family Welfare for supply and installation of maintenance free fully automated NAT facility for screening of HIV, HBV, HCV (all variants) for maximizing the blood safety along with opposite party no.3. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner submitted its offer on 26.03.2014 with two bids, both technical and price bids, valid for 365 days. In technical evaluation, the petitioner being disqualified, its price bid was not opened. Consequentially, opposite party no.3 was selected and issued with work order vide Annexure-9 dated 10.06.2015 and asked to sign the rate contract, i.e., beyond 365 days from the date of submission of tender. The petitioner, being not satisfied with the process of tender conducted by the State opposite parties and attributing unfairness and favourtism in decision making process, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking to quash the work order Annexure-9 issued in favour of opposite party no.3.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State-opposite parties and Mr. B.M. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party no.3. Since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission.

3. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that the work order issued in favour of opposite party no.3 is contrary to the conditions stipulated in the tender documents, inasmuch as the equipment of latest version, i.e., of 2012 was not offered by opposite party no.3 and was not having approval of USFDA & CEIVD and Drug Controller General of India (in short “DCGI”), but offered the older version of 2006 having no facilities of testing all variants of HIV and also no DCGI approval as on the date of submission of bid, which was illegally accepted. Per contra, the offer of the petitioner being latest version of 2012 having CEIVD approval as equivalent to USFDA and also having DCGI approval with facilities of testing all variants of HIV was rejected. It is also urged that the technical committee has been constituted comprising members of no user of petitioner’s equipment, whereas the users of opposite party no.3 equipment, the interested members were taken. Consequentially, alleged mala fide against the constitution of the committee.

4. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties refuted the allegations made by the petitioner and vehemently urged that there is no illegality committed by the authority in the process of selection of opposite party no.3 and issuing the work order. Though some irregularities have been committed, but that is not fatal to the process of selection, and the same have been rectified subsequently. As such, opposite party no.3 having received work order and installed the equipment in June, 2016, which already started its functioning, interference at this stage by this Court will cause great prejudice to the State opposite parties. Therefore, prays that the writ petition should be dismissed as devoid of any merit.

5. Mr. B.M. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party no.3 supported the stand taken by the State and also urged tha