Per: Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

The petitioner, as a proprietorship firm, has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“(i) Appropriate direction shall not be given to the opposite parties more especially opposite party no.2 to award the contract in favour of the petitioner in view of the financial evaluation dated 17.07.2020 under Annexure-3 to secure ends of justice;

(ii) the action of the Opposite Parties more especially opposite party No.2 shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and contrary to the Govt. guidelines and Tender Conditions.

If the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, to make the rule absolute;

And to pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as would deem complete relief to the petitioner;”

2. The Chief District Medical & Public Health Officer-cum- District Mission Director, NHM, Sambalpur, Rogi Kalyan Samiti, DHH, Sambalpur issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) vide RFP Reference No. 459/03/Diet/2020 dated.06.06.2020 at Annexure-1 inviting tenders for supply of diet (dry & cooked) to DHH, Sambalpur. The bid was of two parts, namely, technical bid and financial bid so as to carry on the purpose of request for proposal on outsourcing basis vide service contract with specific terms and conditions mentioned therein. The last date of submission of the tender documents was fixed to 19.06.2020 till 5 p.m. and the date of opening of technical bid was fixed on 20.06.2020 at 11 a.m. The tender inviting authority has also fixed the terms of contract as per the prevailing rules and also fixed the eligibility criteria for such tender.

2.1 The petitioner, having complied all the conditions of tender, submitted relevant documents for the purpose of consideration of its bid. The petitioner, along with opposite parties no. 3 and 4, and four others participated in the bid. The date of opening of technical bid was fixed to 20.06.2020 at 11 a.m. and accordingly, all the bidders participated in the technical bid on the date fixed. The technical bids of the four bidders were rejected, while accepting the technical bids of the petitioner along with opposite parties no. 3 and 4, and it was indicated that they are qualified for opening of the financial bid. Accordingly, vide letter dated 09.07.2020, it was intimated that the financial bid would be opened on 17.07.2020 at 11 a.m. in the office of the CDM & PHO, Sambalpur. The petitioner along with opposite parties no. 3 and 4, who qualified in technical bid, were present in the office of the CDM & PHO, Sambalpur and in their presence, the bids were opened for financial evaluation, wherefrom it is revealed that the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder. But the financial bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of clause-3 of Section-3 of the Terms of Reference (TOR) and the bid was awarded in favour of opposite party no.3-Nirakar Security & Consultancy Services. The petitioner had claimed for supply of result, he was told that the same would be communicated after execution of the agreement. Hence this application.

3. Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically urged that the petitioner being lowest tenderer, instead of issuing work order in its favour, its financial bid was rejected on the ground of clause-3 of Section-3 of Terms of Reference (ToR). It is contended that the petitioner having qualified in technical bid and allowed to participate in the financial bid and having found to be the lowest bidder, invoking clause-3 its financial bid should not have been rejected. It is further contended that the change of condition stipulated in the advertisement after completion of tender process is not permissible. He also alleges mala fide against the authority concerned for selecting opposite party no.3. It is contended that by adopting the faulty procedure the petitioner, who is the lowest bidder, was ignored, whereas opposite party no.3 was selected illegally. As per clause-2.5, the EMD amo