ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1506 of 2025 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

***

Sanjeet Kumar Samal Aged about 41 years Son of Adaitya Kumar Samal At: Matha Sahi P.O./P.S./District: Bhadrak. … Petitioner -VERSUS-

1. Bhadrak Municipality Represented through Executive Officer, At/P.O./P.S./District: Bhadrak.

2. Rajesh Kumar Nayak Aged about 50 years Son of Achyuta Nayak At: Baralapokhari P.O.: Charampa P.S./District: Bhadrak. … Opposite Parties.

Advocates appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Pragyan Paramita Mohanty, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Saibrata Rath, Advocate No.1 For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sushree Sunil Kanta Nayak, No.2 Advocate P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. HARISH TANDON AND HONOURABLE JUSTICE MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 08.04.2026 :: Date of Order : 20.04.2026

JUDGMENT

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

The petitioner, craving to show indulgence in the process of taking decision of the Tender Committee in the Meeting held on 18.12.2024 (Annexure-4), beseeches invocation of judicial review in exercise of provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):

“Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition may be admitted, records may be called for and after hearing the parties, the same may be allowed: by quashing the order under Annexure-4 Series relating to the petitioner‟s tender items as at Para-8; and by directing award of tender to the petitioner in respect of those items; and by granting any other relief(s) as found fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.”

Facts leading to filing of writ petition:

2. From the facts adumbrated in the writ petition, it is gathered that pursuant to Tender Call Notice dated 12.11.2024 (for short, “TCN”) floated by the Bhadrak Municipality, the petitioner participated by submitting its bid documents along with other participants. The petitioner raised objections on 04.12.2024 against the acceptance of bid of the opposite party No.2 (Rajesh Kumar Nayak) whose bid was found eligible and he emerged as successful bidder (hereinafter referred to as “L-1”) in works advertised as reflected at serial Nos.49, 51 and 52 (Annexure-4), namely, 1. Renovation Construction of Paver Road from Amarendra Nanda house towards Bapi Jena house at Sarada Vihar in Ward No.6.

2. Construction of Paver Road from Ganesh Tripathy house towards Jaydeb Nayak house at Niladri Vihar in Ward No.6

3. Construction of Paver Road from Bishnu Mohan Behera house towards Jadumani Nath house at Niladri Vihar in Ward No.6.

2.1. Two-fold objection has been raised by the petitioner:

“Sri Rajesh Kumar Nayak, a controctor, has submitted tenders using the signature „Rajesh Nayak‟ instead of his full name, „Rajesh Kumar Nayak‟.

Additionally, he provided the Schedule-B format with the statement „work in progress‟ rather than including the required particulars.

Thus the tender of Sri Nayak is liable for rejection.”

2.2. As against such objection(s), the Tender Committee in its Meeting held on 18.12.2024 took the following decisions:

“After thorough scrutiny, detailed discussions, and careful deliberation on the complaints received, the committee has reached the following conclusions:

1. Sri Rajesh Kumar Nayak, the contractor, participated in the tender process through the online mode using his Digital Signature Certificate (DSC). Since the DSC is a secure credential that cannot be used by others without the owner‟s knowledge, the committee finds no grounds to question the authenticity of his participation.

2. To address the concern regarding the use of the signature „Rajesh Nayak‟ instead of the full name „Rajesh Kumar Nayak‟ the Committee has directed the Executive Officer (BO) to obtain an affidavit from Sri Nayak, providing an explanation for the discrepancy in