Back
2012 Supreme(Ori) 513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
V. Gopala Gowda, B.N. Mahapatra, JJ.
SRI NIGAMANANDA JENA - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (C) No. 29194 of 2011
Decided On : 22-08-2012
J. Patnaik, M/s. Smita R. Patnaik, N.P. Parija, S.K. Nayak, P.K. Mohanty, Miss M. Mohapatra, for the Appellant; R.K. Mohanty, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to cancel a tender and go for fresh bidding in the interest of public work execution.
Headnote:
Tender - Construction Work - NABARD Assistance-RIDF-XV - [W.P.(C) No. 749 of 2011, W.P.(C) No. 7927 of 2011] - The court discussed the cancellation of the tender, the evaluation report, negotiation of bid value, and the decision to go for fresh bidding. The legal provisions related to tender process, fairness in public work execution, and the authority's power to cancel the tender were key in the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the cancellation of a tender for construction work and the subsequent filing of a Writ Petition challenging the decision. The court analyzed the tender process, evaluation report, negotiation of bid value, and the decision to go for fresh bidding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the tender and the decision to go for fresh bidding were legally valid, considering the value of the tender work and public interest.
Issues: The key issues included the cancellation of the tender, evaluation of bids, negotiation of bid value, and the authority's decision to go for fresh bidding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the cancellation of the tender and the decision to go for fresh bidding were justified based on the value of the tender work and public interest.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-5 by which Opp. Party No. 1-Secretary, Department of Water Resources, Govt. of Orissa, Bhubaneswar, Khurda has cancelled the tender pertaining to "construction of Spur at RD 3.55 KM on Devi Left Embankment of Alipada (Protection to Scoured bank on Devi Left Embankment from RD 3.260 KM to 4.257 KM by providing launching apron & stone revetment) under NABARD Assistance-RIDF-XV" & directed for re-tendering of the said work. Further prayer of the Petitioner is to direct Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to accept the bid of the Petitioner. On 17.11.2011, the matter was heard at length & this Court after hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, State & Opp. Party No. 4, represented by Shri R.K. Mohanty, Advocate reserved the matter for Judgment. Learned Counsel appearing for the State was simultaneously directed to produce the original record of the case.
2. On 1.8.2012, while the matter was listed under head "To Be Mentioned", the Writ Petition was disposed of after hearing Learned Counsel for the Petitioner & State & without hearing Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 4-Narayan Pradhan. Thereafter, Misc. Case No. 12533 of 2012 was filed by Opp. Party No. 4 to recall the Order Dated 01.8.2012 & rehear the Writ Petition. While hearing the said Misc. Case on 10.08.2012, this Court noticed that on 1.8.2012 when the matter was disposed of, certain important aspects of the case were not brought to the notice of this Court either by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner or by Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Therefore, the Order Dated 1.8.2012 which was passed without hearing Mr. R.K. Mohanty, Learned Advocate representing Opp. Party No. 4 was recalled & Judgment was reserved.
3. The present litigation is pertaining to a tender relating to a civil work mentioned supra. Petitioner-Nigamananda Jena, Opp. Party No. 4-Narayan Pradhan & two others had submitted tenders to the Executive Engineer in respect of the work in question. After submission of tender, Opp. Party No. 4 filed W.P.(C) No. 749 of 2011 before this Court challenging the implementation & interpretation of some non-essential clauses in the tender document on the ground that the said clauses are aimed to preclude bona fide tenderers like Opp. Party No. 4 & the interpretation of the said clauses by the State Government in the Department of Water Resources is highly unreasonable & arbitrary. In the said W.P.(C) No. 749 of 2011 this Court by an interim Order Dated 18.1.2011 directed that the tender document of Opp. Party No. 4-Narayan Pradhan shall not be discared only for the said clauses which are challenged in the Writ Petition. Pursuant to the said order, the Executive Engineer opened the technical bid of all the tenderers & submitted the evaluation report. As per the said evaluation report, in the technical bid the Opp. Party No. 4-Narayan Pradhan was declared disqualified on the ground of non-fulfilment of those non-essential clauses which were challenged in the said Writ Petition. Since during the pendency of the W.P.(C) No. 749 of 2011, Opp. Party No. 4-Narayan Pradhan was declared' disqualified on technical grounds, he was advised to withdraw the said Writ Petition & this Court vide Order Dated 23.3.2011 dismissed the said Writ Petition as withdrawn with the liberty to challenge the order of non-acceptance of the tender. Thereafter, Opp. Party No. 4-Narayan Pradhan filed W.P.(C) No. 7927 of 2011 in this Court challenging the evaluation report of Executive Engineer by which his tender was rejected on technical ground. During pendency of W.P.(C) No. 7927 of 2011 this Court vide Order Dated 31.3.2011 directed the Executive Engineer to open the financial bid of all the tenderers & furnish detail particulars. On opening of the financial bids it was found that while the Petitioner Nigamananda Jena quoted the price at Rs. 6,73,19,663.65, Opp. Party N
