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 no loss to state revenue.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, ACJ.

1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 12.08.2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No.5 of 2022 by the Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi under Section 46 of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016, vide Annexure-7, whereby the order dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Tahasildar, Kasinagar selecting the petitioner as the highest bidder has been set aside.

2. At the time of hearing, Mr. Giridhari Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.5, referring to the impugned order dated 12.08.2022 passed in Misc. Appeal No.5 of 2022 under Annexure-7 raised a preliminary objection and contended that the name of the appellant before the Sub-Collector, Paralakhemundi in the above noted Misc. Appeal was described to be one Subash Ch. Routa and respondent no.1 therein was one Sri Madan Mohan Pradhan. Therefore, the present petitioner is in no way concerned or affected and, as such, at his instance, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

2.1. In reply to such objection, Mr. Soumya Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that there is wrong description of parties in the cause title of the impugned order. He, however, draws the attention of this Court to the unnumbered 2^nd paragraph of the impugned order to demonstrate that the name of the present petitioner finds mentioned as “respondent no.2-Narayana Biswal quoted Rs.557/-”. Therefore, he has contended that the petitioner, being one of the bidders and having quoted Rs.557/-, has got substantial participation. The wrong description in the cause title made by the authority cannot preclude the petitioner from filing the present writ petition.

2.2. In view of above position, the objection so raised by Mr. Giridhari Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.5 is overruled and, as such, the petitioner-Narayana Biswal is permitted to prosecute the case.

3. The petitioner, who has been declared as the highest bidder, sought to quash the order dated 12.08.2022 under Annexure-7 and to issue a direction to the Controlling Authority to take necessary action in conformity with the provisions contained under Rule 27 (10) of the OMMC Rules, 2016.

4. The factual matrix of the case is that opposite party no.4, the Tahasildar, Kashinagar issued a tender call notice bearing no.4898/Sairat dated 20.09.2021 inviting applications from intending candidates for various minor mineral quarries and prescribed the date within which the form was to be filed along with supporting documents. The petitioner, being capable and eligible, filed the necessary application along with documents and participated in the process of awarding bid in respect of Kittingi Sand Quarry (Serial No.6 of the tender call notice) on a long term lease for a period of 5 years and also filled the Form ‘M’ along with all requisite documents, as per the tender call notice, by complying with the provisions contained in Rule 27 of the OMMC Rules, 2016.

5. As it appears, eleven persons had participated in the bid process in respect of Kittingi Sand Quarry. On opening of the bid, it was found that the petitioner quoted Rs.557/- and the Tahasildar declared the petitioner as the highest successful bidder. As it appears, opposite party no.5 though participated in the bid and quoted Rs.777/-, but his bid was not accepted due to insufficient solvency and, thereby, he was disqualified from participating in the process of bid. In the notice dated 05.