Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
B.P. Routray, J.
Ashirbad Industries & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Odisha & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2850 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2021
Tender Cancellation - Hydro Mechanical Gate Works - [JUDICIAL REVIEW, TENDER CANCELLATION, LITIGATION] - The court discussed the cancellation of the e-Tender for Hydro Mechanical Gate works and the principles of judicial review in tender and contractual matters. The court referred to the scope of interference in tender and contractual matters, the doctrine of lis pendens, and previous case laws to determine the legality of the tender cancellation. The cancellation was found to be lawful and not in violation of the Petitioners' rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the cancellation of a tender for Hydro Mechanical Gate works after being selected as successful bidders. The cancellation was based on defects and discrepancies noticed during re-verification of the bid documents by higher authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the tender did not violate any rights accrued in favor of the petitioners and was not unreasonable or illegal. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit to interfere with the cancellation of the e-Tender.
Issues: The main issue was whether the cancellation of the tender violated the rights of the petitioners and whether it was unreasonable or illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of judicial review in tender and contractual matters, considered the doctrine of lis pendens, and referred to previous case laws to determine the legality of the tender cancellation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
B.P. Routray,J. - Three petitioners, viz., M/s.Ashirbad Industries, M/s.Poojarini Enterprisers and M/s.Bhagabati Industries have jointly filed the present writ petition challenging the cancellation of Tender Call Notice No.1W/2020-21 invited through e-Tender by the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar to execute the Hydro Mechanical Gate works under different Civil Divisions.
2. The Petitioners state that they all are registered small scale industrial units and in pursuance to Tender Call Notice No.1W/2020- 21, they participated in the tender process for Fabrication, Supply, Transportation and Erection of hydro mechanical gate works under Opposite Party No.5, i.e. the Executive Engineer, Mechanical Division, Bhubaneswar. The tender was available from 21st May, 2020 to 30th May, 2020 through e-Tender with stipulation for opening of the technical bid on 1 st June, 2020. The Petitioners are the successful L-1 bidders for 24 nos. of works as per the tender notice. On 10th June, 2020, Opposite Party No.5 recommended the case of the Petitioners for the work to the Superintending Engineer (Opposite Party No.4) and thereafter the Superintending Engineer further recommended the same to the Chief Engineer (Opposite Party No.3). As there was delay in finalizing the tender process, the Petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.17602/2020, W.P.(C) No.17593/2020 and W.P.(C) No.17594/2020 individually, which were disposed of by this Court with direction to Opposite Party No.5 to consider and dispose of the representation of the Petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording reasonable opportunities of hearing to the Petitioners. Since the direction of this Court has not complied in time, CONTC No.3706/2020, CONTC No.3702/2020 and CONTC No.3707/2020 have been preferred by the Petitioners.
3. In the meantime, the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer in their orders dated 10th September, 2020 (Annexure-7) and 15th September, 2020 (Annexure-6) intimated Opposite Party No.5 for rejection of the tender as the tender documents are found defective and the discrepancies regarding "Structure and Organization", "Plant and Equipment" and "Performance record" are noticed during re-scrutinization.
4. Getting information of such letters of the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer, the Petitioners filed three writ petitions in W.P.(C) No.29174/2020, W.P.(C) No.29192/2020 and W.P.(C) No.29194/2020 individually challenging such instructions of the Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer as well as for a direction to Opposite Party No.5 to finalize the tender process in favour of the Petitioners. In W.P.(C) No.29174/2020, Opposite Party No.5 filed his counter stating that, submission of details about "Structure and Organization", "List of Plant and Equipment" and "Performance record" are mandatory requirements as per Form-B, Form-E and Annexure-A of the Tender Call Notice and nonsubmission of the same were noticed after re-verification of the bids.
5. While the matter stood as thus, the order under Annexure-1 cancelling the tender was issued by the Opposite Party No.5- Executive Engineer.
6. Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that when the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.29174/2020, W.P.(C) No.29192/2020 and W.P.(C) No.29194/2020 praying for finalizing the tender are pending adjudication, the order of cancellation passed by the Executive Engineer under Annexure-1 is erroneous and hit by the principles of lis pendens. His further contention is that, when the Petitioners have been selected as successful bidders, the unilateral action of the Opposite Parties in cancelling the tender without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention, he cites two decisions of this Court in the case of Homogenomics Private Ltd. vs. State of Odisha and others, (2017) 1 ILR(Cut)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
