JUDGMENT :

VINEET SARAN, J.

A tender call notice was issued by opposite party no.3, Integrated Tribal Development Agency (ITDA), Kaptipada, Udala on 22.08.2015, which was in respect of 21 works. The dispute in the present petition relates to the works at serial no.1 and 2. The petitioner, along with several other persons, had filed their tenders for serial no. 1 and 2. As per the tender conditions, the tenders were opened on 22.09.2015 and the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder in respect of both the works, i.e., at serial no.1 and 2, which was after having been given the benefit of the resolution of the State Government dated 11.10.1977, as the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste/schedule tribe community.

2. When the opposite parties did not finalize the tender in his favour, on 21.11.2015, the petitioner filed a representation before opposite party no.3. Since the representation was not decided, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 21633 of 2015, which was disposed of on 15.12.2015 with the direction to opposite party no.3, the Project Administrator, ITDA to dispose of the representation within a period of two months. Then, instead of first deciding the representation of the petitioner, opposite party no.3 vide its order dated 03.02.2016 cancelled the entire tender call notice dated 22.08.2015. Then, a day thereafter, i.e., on 04.02.2016 the representation of the petitioner was decided and he was informed that the entire tender call notice has itself been cancelled. Challenging the order dated 04.02.2016, as well as cancellation of the tender call notice dated 22.08.2015 vide order dated 03.02.2016, this writ petition has been filed.

3. We have heard Mr. A. K. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, and perused the records. Pleadings having been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

4. The submission of Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no dispute about the fact that the tenders of the petitioner with regard to work at serial no.1 and 2 were the lowest and, since the petitioner was otherwise fully qualified, he ought to have been awarded the work. It is contended that once the bids of the participants had been opened, the rates quoted by the petitioner have been disclosed, and in case a fresh tender for the same work is called then the petitioner would be prejudiced. It is also submitted that the representation of the petitioner ought to have been first decided by opposite party no.3 before the order dated 03.02.2016 was passed, canceling the entire tender call notice. It is further contended that the reason assigned for rejecting the representation of the petitioner is frivolous and the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that the primary reason for canceling the tender call notice was that 90 days period had expired since the opening of the tenders, and invoking condition no.17 of the tender document, the tender call notice has been cancelled by resorting to clause-10 of the term and condition of the tender papers, in terms of which “the authority reserves the right to reject any or all tenders without assigning any reason thereof.” It is also submitted that the opposite parties did not take a final decision relating to the finalization of the tenders, as one Kaptipada Contractors Association had filed a representation on 08.09.2015 praying for acceptance of the tender documents by hand instead of through registered post/speed post, as provided for in the tender notice. The said representation having not been considered, the Kaptipada Contractors Association filed W.P.(C) No. 16617 of 2015, which is pending. However, admittedly, no interim order has been passed in the said writ petition.

6. From the submissions advanced by learned counsel