The central legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a bid must be lawful and in accordance with the terms of the tender notice. The court emphasized the importance of meeting the eligibility criteria and highlighted the principle of preventing mala fide actions in the bidding process.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray,J. - The Petitioner participated in the bidding process pursuant to Tender Call Notice (TCN) dated 30th December, 2019 issued by Opposite Party No.3 for supply of diet (dry and cooked) for SCB Medial College and Hospital, Cuttack. The TCN prescribed the conditions of submission of required documents, inter alia, the labour license and food license with three years relevant experience.

2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he having fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility participated in the tender along with Opposite Party Nos.4, 5 and 6. He was intimated to remain present before the Tender Committee on 17.2.2020 at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for finalization of the technical bid. During scrutinization, he was intimated of non-submission of uptodate renewal labour license. So apprehending rejection of his technical bid, he earlier filed W.P.(C) No.6574 of 2020 before this Court, which was dismissed by order dated 20th February, 2020 observing the same as pre-mature since no final decision has been taken on the tender. Thereafter coming to know about the rejection of his technical bid and selection of Opposite Party No.5 as the successful bidder through RTI application, he preferred the present writ petition praying to accept his offer and to award the contract in his favour.

3. Opposite Party No.3, the Superintendent of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, has filed the reply refuting the claim of the Petitioner. As per their statement, the technical bid of the Petitioner was rejected for non-submission of appropriate labour license and proper certificate of three years experience in diet preparation and supply and as such, the Petitioner being disqualified in the technical bid was debarred from participating further.

4. Opposite Party No.5, who was selected as the successful bidder, has also come to contest the writ petition by filing his counter. Said Opposite Party No.5 in his counter reply has supported the stand of Opposite Party No.3 that, the Petitioner being disqualified in the technical bid has been debarred from participating in the financial bid. It is also stated that, by order dated 27th November, 2020, the work order has been issued in his favour and presently he is supplying the diet with effect from 1st December, 2020.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the labour license submitted by the Petitioner is valid and is as per the requirement in terms of the conditions prescribed in the TCN. Further the experience certificate of three years in diet preparation and supply is also as per the requirements. But Opposite Party No.3 in connivance with Opposite Party No.5 has rejected his technical bid with mala fide intentions as he has quoted the lowest price. It is also submitted that the theory of labour license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is a new concept advanced by Opposite Party No.3 which was never the requirement as per the conditions of the TCN.

6. Having considered the submissions of the respective parties, it is seen from Annexure-1 that the conditions stipulated as per the Clause VI.3.3 and VI.3.9 are as follows:

"VI.3. Eligibility Criteria:

xx xx xx

3. The bidder should have a minimum of 3 years experience in diet preparation and its supply/services in Govt. or Private Health Institutions only having minimum 200 no. of bed.

xx xx xx

9.The bidder should have valid labour license (registration no. & date) of Labour department."

7. The main thrust of argument of Mrs. S. Pattanayak, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of Opposite Party No.3 is that, the bidders are required to submit the labour license issued by the Labour Department in terms of Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. But what is submitted by the Petitioner is the registration certificate granted under the Odisha Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, which is not sufficient for the purpos