##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.33656 of 2025

M/s. Netincon Marketing Private …. Petitioner

Limited, Kolkata

Mr. Jishnu Saha, Senior Advocate assisted by

M/s. Subhojit Roy, Pranit Bag, Rohit Mukherji,

R. Ray Chowdhuri, S. Senapati, S.K. Jajodia

and G. Mishra, Advocates

-versus-

Union of India and others …. Opposite Parties

Mr. Gautam Misra, Senior Advocate assisted by

Mr. J.R. Deo, Advocate for OP Nos.2 to 6

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No. 23.12.2025

02. 1. The present writ petition is at the behest of the petitioner

being a lead member of the Consortium, who participated in a tender

floated by the Paradip Port Authority for “Chartering Ofgreen Tug

(Green Tug Transition Programme Compliant) “Manning,

Operation, Maintenance and Complete Technical Management of

Service Provider Owned 01/02 No.60T Bollard Pull New Battery

Electric Tug for 15 years at Paradip Port Authority””. Subsequently,

the said tender is cancelled citing administrative reasons. There is no

elaboration of the facts which led the administrative decision to be

taken for cancellation of the said tender.

2. According to the petitioner, his bid was found valid at the

technical bid stage, which is disputed by Mr. Gautam Misra, learned

Page 1 of 3

Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Paradip Port Authority.

According to Mr. Misra, the bid submitted by the petitioner was

rejected on the ground that it lacks certain requisite documents,

which are mandatory in nature.

3. Be that as it may, the aforementioned fact does not appear

from the documents annexed to the writ petition and, therefore, we

feel that an opportunity should be given to Paradip Port Authority to

disclose such facts by way of affidavit. Another member of the

Consortium filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.33659 of 2025,

which is appearing as Item No.60 in the today’s list, wherein this

Court on 1^st December, 2025 despite having held that the petitioner

is entitled to an interim measure, but no express order was passed as

the committee had not finalized the fresh tender as on the said date.

4. It was submitted on behalf of the Paradip Port Authority

that they will advise the authorities not to float the tender till the next

date. The matter requires consideration on the parameter whether the

procedures envisaged in the General Financial Rules (GFR) and the

manual of procurement of the works, which contained an exhaustive

provision relating to the communication of the order of rejection and

affording an opportunity to such bidder, are followed. This apart, the

cancellation of the tender under specified eventualities having not

followed whether the cancellation of tender is permissible.

5. We are conscious that the interference under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India in a tender matter is within the limited

compass yet there is no absolute fetter on the part of the writ Court

in interfering with the tender process provided the Court finds that

Page 2 of 3

the action of the authorities is either contrary to the statutory

documents or manifestly arbitrary, perverse and/or an act actuated

with malice.

6. Since the point involved in the instant writ petition needs

consideration and the fact that the tender has now been finalized and

may be floated in the near future, we, therefore, direct the Paradip

Port Authorities not to float the tender in respect of the present

subject tender till the next date.

7. List this matter on 9^th January, 2026 along with W.P.(C)

No.33659 of 2025. In the meantime, it is open to the contesting

opposite parties to file counter affidavit, if any.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

Sisira

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Page 3 of 3

Reason: Authentication

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 24-Dec-2025 16:39:32