Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.R.SARANGI, B.P.SATAPATHY, JJ.
Dinakrushna Pattanaik - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Opp. Parties
W.P(C) No.21196 of 2021
Decided On : 24-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute regarding sand quarry bidding process. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against acceptance of second highest bid. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. observations on authority's adherence to tender rules. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. legal guidance on powers of authorities in bidding. (Para 9) |
| 5. consequences of issuing form-f and compliance with rules. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. statutory powers must not serve arbitrary interests. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 28) |
| 7. judicial review ensures accountability in contractual matters. (Para 30) |
| 8. negotiation resolutions regarding bid acceptance. (Para 34) |
| 9. conclusion and directive for future action. (Para 35 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. SARANGI, J.
The petitioner, who is one of the bidders, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order dated 07.07.2021 passed in Touzi Misc. Case No.6 of 2021, by which opposite party no.3-Sub-Collector, Talcher has dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule-46(1) of ODISHA MINOR MINERAL CONCESSION RULES , 2016 (for short “OMMC Rules, 2016”), and further to issue direction to opposite party no.3 to cancel the lease granted to opposite party no.5- Banambar Bhutia in respect of Gopinathpur Sand Quarry and further to issue direction to opposite party no.4-Tahasildar, Talcher to grant the said Sand Quarry in favour of the petitioner.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the Tahasildar, Talcher issued notification dated 14.10.2020 under Annexure-2 to lease out Gopinathpur Sand Quarry and other five sand quarries under Talcher, Tahasil for a period of five years. As per the said notice, the intending bidders were required to apply by 16.11.2020 under the sealed cover in accordance with the OMMC Rules, 2016 and the tender forms were to be opened on 17.I1.2020 and the bidders quoting the highest additional charges were to be allotted with the sand quarries for a period of five years.
2.1 Consequent upon receipt of the tender forms, in pursuance of the above notice, the Tahasildar, Talcher opened the sealed cover tender box on 17.11.2020 in presence of the bidders and their respective representatives. In respect of Gopinathpur Sand Quarry, it was found that all total ten bidders, including the petitioner, had submitted their bids. After opening of their bids, the committee prepared a comparison statement, from which it was evident that one Sanjib Kumar Bhutia had quoted Rs.921/-, opposite party no.5 had quoted Rs.550/- and the petitioner had quoted Rs.349/- per cum as additional charge. Therefore, the Tahasildar, Talcher declared Sanjib Kumar Bhutia as the highest bidder and as per the provisions contained in Rule-27(6) of the OMMC Rules, 2016, he issued Form-F on 20.11.2020 in favour of Sanjib Kumar Bhutia, who submitted a letter intimating that due to some difficulties, he was unable to operate Gopinathpur Sand Quarry.
2.2 On receipt of the aforesaid letter on 20.11.2020, the Tahasildar, Talcher, vide order dated 20.11.2020, submitted the case record to the Collector, Angul, who is the Controlling Authority, for approval of second highest bidder. The Controlling Authority, vide letter dated 30.12.2020, intimated the Tahasildar, Talcher to the following effect:-
“ xxx xxx xxx
As you have recommended for approval the proposal in favour of second highest bidder in shape of case record.it is clear that you have opted to select the second bidder. Hence Tahasildar, Talcher is appropriate competent authority to settle the source in favour of second highest bidder if it is found that there is no unusual low price. The jurisdiction of controlling authority arises only to take decision in case of unusual low price proposal received specifically.
xxx xxx xxx
The sairat case record bearing No.05 of 2020 was returned to the then Tahasildar, Talcher for information and necessary follow up action as per the above observations”.
On receipt of the said records, the Tahasildar, Talcher- opposite party no.4, in his turn passed order on 06.01.2021 in favour of oppos
The court affirmed the principle that disqualification of a bidder must comply with statutory provisions, and a successful bidder can match a higher bid if disqualified for solvency issues, ensuring ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the provisions of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, particularly Rule 27 (10), and the need to ensu....
Compliance with the specific procedures outlined in the OMMC Rules, 2016 is mandatory, and failure to adhere to these procedures may result in the dismissal of claims.
The competent authority has the power to grant an extension of time to the highest bidder, and no right accrues to the next highest bidder unless intimated by the authority.
The tendering process must adhere strictly to statutory rules, particularly when it comes to valid bidders and quotation limits.
The court emphasized the principle that when a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and any other methods are barred.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for cancellation of a lease under Rule 51 (7) of the OMMC Rules must be followed, and the competent authority's power cannot be ....
The rejection of bids must be based on valid reasons and must not be arbitrary or mala fide. Court orders must be adhered to, and decisions must be in accordance with the law.
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
