Cancellation of bid acceptance is lawful when the selected party fails to execute the requisite contract, reaffirming that non-compliance voids binding obligations.

JUDGMENT

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in both the Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it apposite to deal the W.P.(C) No.14545 of 2015 as the leading case for proper adjudication of both the cases.

2. In filing this Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.14545 of 2015, the Petitioner has challenged the communication/ order dated 14.05.2015 issued / passed by the Deputy General Manager and the Chief General Manager, United Bank of India/Opposite Party No.1.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The concise yet comprehensive factual record of the case, pertaining to the matter at hand, is presented succinctly as follows:

(i) Pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.10.2013 published by the Opposite Party/Bank authorities for installation of the ATM, the present Petitioner on 01.11.2013 submitted his proposal by offering his premises for the above purpose on lease basis. It is pertinent to mention here that through the said advertisement there was requirement of a suitable, ready built and well constructed premises of around 80 Sqft. of land for the above purpose.

(ii) Apart from the Petitioner, four other persons had also submitted their proposals for the above purpose. After considering all the proposals, the Opposite Parties vide its communication dated 16.08.2014 informed the Petitioner about approval of his application by the concerned authority for installation of ATM in his premises. The said communication also indicates the terms and conditions to be incorporated in the agreement.

(iii) In the said communication, the Petitioner was asked to submit his written version, if he is agreeable to accept the terms and conditions for the purpose of execution of the lease agreement. Thereafter, the Petitioner offered his willingness on 18.08.2014 by agreeing to the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 16.08.2014.

(iv) After offering his willingness, the Petitioner remained hopeful of getting the said allotment. But, in the meantime, the Petitioner got an information from a reliable source that the offer of one Niranjan Sahoo/ the Opposite Party No.3 in W.P.(C) No.3660 of 2015, who was not even the applicant for the above purpose, has been accepted by the Opposite Party/Bank authorities clandestinely.

(v) Soon after getting such information, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.3660 of 2015, which has been heard and going to be disposed of by this common judgment. Thereafter, hearing the Petitioner on admissions of the above noted Writ Petition, this Court vide order dated 02.03.2015 directed for maintenance of status quo in respect of installation of the ATM in question till the next date.

(vi) Thereafter, one Jitendra Kumar Subudhi sought for certain information relating to installation of ATM in village Padmabati pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.10.2013. Accordingly, the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 13.05.2015 informed that four persons namely Dibakar Sahoo i.e. the present Petitioner, Narayan Sahoo, Nirakar Sahoo and Chakradhar Das were the applicants pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.10.2013 for installation of ATM. In the said information it was clearly indicated that the premises of the Petitioner was selected for installation of ATM, but on the next day of disclosure, vide communication dated 14.05.2015, the Opposite Party No.1 cancelled the acceptance letter of the Petitioner dated 18.08.2014. Being aggrieved by the said cancellation, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner(s) earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) Challenging such action of the Opposite Parties/Bank authorities the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the Petitioner had not violated any of the terms and conditions of the offer made by the Opposite Party/Bank authorities, there was no occa