The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasons to be provided for administrative decisions, especially in the context of tender cancellations.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The Petitioner, who is a Scheduled Caste ‘A’ Class Contractor, has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the Office Order dated 28.12.2018 at Annexure-4, whereby the Superintending Engineer, Cuttack (R&B) Circle, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.2 has cancelled the Tender Call Notice No.S.E. Ctc. (R&B) 3/2018-19 at Annexure-1, pursuant to which the Petitioner was selected as L1 Bidder.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Petitioner is a Scheduled Caste ‘A’ Class Contractor duly registered under the P.W.D. having Registration No. 458/2016-17. The Superintending Engineer, Cuttack (R&B) Circle, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.2 invited tenders for “Construction of E Type Quarters (One Block-6 Nos) for Police Department at OSAP 6th Bn. Cuttack (Civil, El, PH)” vide Bid Identification No. S.E. Ctc.(R&B) 3/2018-19. Pursuant to the Detailed Tender Call Notice, the Petitioner submitted his bid. The bid was of two parts, namely, Technical Bid and Financial Bid. The Technical Bid is used to disqualify the Bidders, who are not eligible as per the Clauses entered under the Detailed Tender Call Notice. Then the Financial Bid is opened in order to ascertain the lowest Bidder, i.e. L1 Bidder, so as to award the tender.

As per the schedule of tender documents, the Petitioner submitted his bid and participated in the process of tender. He having been qualified in the Technical Bid, which was opened on 06.10.2018, his Financial Bid was taken into consideration and he was declared as L1 in furtherance of his quote percentage of -8.01. But, instead of awarding the work order to the Petitioner to perform the work, Opposite Party No.2 cancelled the tender, vide Office Order dated 28.12.2018. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Mr. Anup Kumar Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the Petitioner, being a Scheduled Caste ‘A’ Class Contractor, having been participated in the tender process and declared as L1, after the Financial Bid was opened, all of a sudden and without assigning any reason, the Opposite Party No.2 should not have cancelled the Tender Notice, particularly when the Petitioner had a legitimate expectation that after being declared as L1 he would be given the rightful opportunity to discharge his part of obligation, as per the Tender Call Notice, to perform the work in question. Therefore, cancellation of tender, vide impugned order dated 28.12.2018 at Annexure-4, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

3.1 It is further contended that Opposite Party No.2, being a State, every administrative decision taken by it is to be supported by reasonable nexus to the object that it is trying to achieve and in absence of such reasonable nexus, every administrative decision must be deemed to be arbitrary, illegal and untenable in the eye of law and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3.2 To substantiate his contention, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Tarun Mohanty v. State of Odisha and Ors, 2018 (I) OLR 1025 : 2018 (II) ILR-CUT 12 and in the case of Rutuparna Construction v. State of Odisha and Ors, 2018 (II) OLR 496 : 2018 (II) ILR-CUT 197.

4. Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties contended that pursuant to the Tender Call Notice, five (5) numbers of bidders were technically qualified, out of which, four (4) were SC Contractors. To extend the benefit to all the SC Contractors and to ensure a more competitive price, all the technically qualified SC Contractors were requested to submit their willingness to avail price preference applicable to SC/ST Contractors and after receipt of their willingness, they were asked to submit negotiation in sealed cover. When other three bidders submitted their negotiation, the Petitioner-Contractor, who was L1 in Financial Bid, as his bid price was 8.01% less than the tender price, declined in writing to submit negotiati