JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

M/s Krishik Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a registered Class-A contractor eligible to carry out civil works of the State Government, Central Government, Public Sector Undertakings by way of participating in the tender process. The Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (in short ‘IDCO’) issued Invitation for Bids (IFB) on 21.09.2015 through online for “Construction of Gents Hostel (second floor) of Govt. Polytechnic at Ragadi in the district of Jajpur”. Pursuant to such IFB, the petitioner, along with others, submitted its bid. Even though the petitioner was qualified, being a single bidder, its tender was cancelled. Consequentially, a fresh IFB was issued on 07.12.2015 through online from the registered IDCO Vendors/Contractors having appropriate class of registration from State PWD/CPWD/Railways/MES for the selfsame work as per the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The estimated cost of such work was Rs.130.00 lakhs approximately. The petitioner, having satisfied the terms and conditions stipulated therein, submitted its bid on 19.12.2015. The tender of the petitioner, having been found suitable both in the technical bid and in financial bid, was accepted at Rs.1,25,47,857/-, which is lower than the estimated price. The Chief General Manager (Civil), IDCO-opposite party no.2 issued a letter of acceptance on 15.03.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to deposit initial security deposit of Rs.2,50,957/-, either in shape of demand draft or bank guarantee drawn in any nationalized bank / schedule bank in favour of IDCO. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to deposit additional performance security of Rs.73,927/- and requisite non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.100/- with sufficient catridge papers for execution of agreement within fifteen days from the date of issuance of the acceptance letter. The petitioner complied with the same on 16.03.2016. The Divisional Head IDCO, Jajpur Road Division-opposite party no.3 issued work order on 30.03.2016 for execution of work in question, which was received by the petitioner on 07.04.2016. The petitioner requested the office of the opposite party no.3 for supply of approved drawing of the building. The same having not been supplied, the petitioner again issued reminder on 15.04.2016 through registered post with A.D., but the same was not responded to by opposite party no.3. Lastly on 27.04.2016, the petitioner made a further request, but opposite party no.3 remained silent. For execution of work, the petitioner invested huge amount of money. At this juncture, by letter dated 07.04.2016, opposite party no.3 instructed its material testing section for testing of raw materials to be used in the construction of building in question. Accordingly, the petitioner was intimated to deposit an amount of Rs.8,419/- with the Officer-in-Charge of Testing Laboratory along with the samples. The petitioner, thereafter, got the samples of design mix M-20 tested by Sai Consultancy, Bhubaneswar, which supplied the test result report of the cement concrete mix design to the petitioner on 18.04.2016.

2. When the matter thus stood, opposite party no.2 invited a fresh IFB on 07.05.2016 for the self same work. Then the petitioner approached opposite party no.1 to ascertain the reason for inviting fresh tender. It was informed that the letter of acceptance issued in favour of the petitioner dated 15.03.2016 had been withdrawn and tender was cancelled. On 13.05.2016, a copy of the letter bearing no. 9412 dated 04.05.2016 was made available to the petitioner, wherein it was intimated that letter of acceptance issued in favour of the petitioner company has been withdrawn and tender process stood cancelled on administrative ground, hence this application.

3. Mr. B.K. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a perusal of the office order dated 04.05.2016 in Annexure-11 would indicate