JUDGMENT :

VINEET SARAN, J.

The petitioner is an ‘A’ class contractor registered under PWD Contractors’ Registration Rules, 1967, so also is opposite party no.4. The Superintending Engineer, Eastern Circle (R&B), Balasore, on behalf of Governor of Odisha, invited public tender, vide Bid Identification No. SEEC(R&B)-06/2017-18 dated 23.11.2017, for several works including the one at serial no.4, i.e., “Construction of H.L. Bridge over Raigudi Nallah at 80/575 Km on Sergarh-Nilgiri-Kaptipada-Udala-Baripada-Midanapur Road (SH-19) for the year 2017-18” with estimated cost of Rs.3,81,89,339.00 paise. The last date of submission of bid was 22.12.2017 up to 5.00 PM. The date of opening of technical bid cover was 27.12.2017 at 4.00 PM. Pursuant to such tender call notice, 13 bidders participated including the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4. The petitioner, having complied with all criteria, qualified in the technical bid. Thereafter, price bid was opened on 12.02.2018 and it was found that the petitioner was 1st lowest tenderer and the opposite party no.4 was 5th lowest tenderer. Therefore, in normal course, the petitioner, being the L-1, should have been given the tender. Instead of doing so, the bid of opposite party no.4, who belonged to scheduled caste, was treated as lowest, after granting the benefit of 10% price preference under the State Government notification/circular dated 11.10.1977, and opposite party no.4 was awarded with the tender, hence this application.

2. Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the license of opposite party no.4, which was of ‘A’ class contractor, does not indicate that the license has been given to a scheduled caste person, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the circular dated 11.10.1977. The submission is that the provision of noting the caste in the license is only upto ‘B’ class contractor and, as such, since the license of ‘A’ class and above contractors do not have the provision of mentioning the caste, hence the intention of the Government was to give the benefit of the circular dated 11.10.1977 only to contractors upto ‘B’ class and not above.

3. Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, as well as Sri R.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 have submitted that the benefit of the circular dated 11.10.1977 is to be given to all classes of contractors, which is for the benefit of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe contractor, without any limitation with regard to category/class of the contractors.

4. We have heard Sri P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for State opposite parties no.1 to 3 and Sri R.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

5. On the basis of the pleadings available on record and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, two questions emerge for consideration; firstly, whether the notification/circular dated 11.10.1977 would be applicable only up to ‘B’ class contractors and not for ‘A’ class, special-class and super-class contractors; and secondly, whether the opposite party no.4 had provided the requisite information under Schedule-G of the tender call notice relating to existing commitments and ongoing works, and as such his bid should have been technically disqualified or not.

6. For better appraisal, the circular/notification dated 11.10.1977 is reproduced below:

“Guidelines to Works Department Government Instructions

Grant of Concession to Schedule Caste And Scheduled Tribe Contractors

The question of providing certain concessions to S.C. and S.T. Contractors regarding award of works had engaged the attention of Govt. for some time past. On the basis of the recommendation of