Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Narayana Biswal – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the order of disqualification in bid process (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. preliminary objection related to parties' description (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner's relief sought to quash the appellate order (Para 3 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. disqualification due to insufficient solvency certificate (Para 10 , 17) |
| 5. court's analysis of the appellate authority's decision (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. writ petition allowed, order quashed (Para 19 , 20) |
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 th
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 court ruled that statutory authorities must adhere strictly to tender rules, rejecting arbitrary acceptance of bids that are significantly lower than the highest bid to safeguard public revenue.
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....
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.
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.
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 rejection of bids by public authorities must adhere to the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The court ruled that escalation of prices for procurement of minor minerals is permissible where the designated quarry was closed due to external factors, contradicting the initial denial based on a ....
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
