Advocates:
NIKILESH RAMACHANDRANSATYA MITRA GARG

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 12

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 5699 of 2006

PETITIONER:

Jagdish Mandal

RESPONDENT:

State of Orissa & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/\020K/06

BENCH:

G. P. Mathur & R. V. Raveendran

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3196/2006]

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5700/2006

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7817/2006]

Laxman Sharma \005. Appellant

Vs.

State of Orissa & Others \005. Respondents

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.

These two appeals by special leave, arise out of a common judgment

dated 25.1.2006 passed by the Orissa High Court allowing Writ Petition

(Civil) Nos. 4769/2005 and 4768/2005 filed by Narayan Mohanty (common

fifth respondent in these two appeals). In the said petitions, Narayan

Mohanty had challenged the award of construction contracts to Jagdish

Mandal and Laxman Sharma (respective appellant in these appeals) in Upper

Indravati Irrigation Project (’UIIP’ for short). The State, the Executive

Engineer (Right Canal Division No.III), the Chief Engineer (UIIP), and

Superintending Engineer (UIIP) who were the common respondents 1 to 4 in

the said two writ petitions hold the same rank in these two appeals.

Facts in SLP [C] No.3196/2006 (re : first stretch)

2. The second Respondent, acting on behalf of the Water Resources

Department, State of Orissa, invited tenders for "construction of Right

Extension Main Canal from RD 8.01 km to 9.03 km including structures" by

tender notice dated 9.11.2004. The estimated value of the work as per the

tender schedule was Rs.1,69,10,506. In response, 17 tenders were received.

The offer of the fifth respondent was the lowest (Rs.1,22,99,099) and the

offer of appellant (J. Mandal) was the second lowest (Rs.1,29,36,579). The

Executive Engineer recommended the acceptance of the tender of fifth

respondent.

3. The fifth respondent furnished the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) by

pledging a postal Term Deposit of Rs.1,70,000/- (Passbook No.154120

dated 6.12.2004 issued by the Post Master, Mukhiguda) in favour of the

second respondent. A written complaint was received by the Department

alleging that fifth respondent had made a postal deposit of only Rs.7,000 and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 12

had defrauded the Department by altering the figure in the passbook as

Rs.1,70,000. In view of the said complaint, the Superintending Engineer

wrote to the concerned Post Office on 3.2.2005 requesting confirmation

about the authenticity of the said Term deposit. A similar letter was

addressed by the Chief Engineer on 11.3.2005 to the Post Master General,

Berhampur Zone, seeking information as to whether fifth respondent had

made a deposit of Rs.1,70,000 on 6.12.2004 or any subsequent date. The

Superintendent of Post Offices, Kalahandi Division, sent a reply dated

14.3.2005 to the Superintending Engineer stating that the said TD Account

for Rs.1,70,000 submitted by fifth respondent should not be taken into

account for any official requirement.

4. The tenders were scrutinized and considered by the Project Level

Committee (’Committee’ for short) consisting of the Superintending

Engineer, (Right Canal Circle), the Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts

Officer (UIIP), the Executive Engineer (UIRC Division No. III), and the

Assistant to Chief Engineer(UIIP). The details of their deliberations and

recommendations are contained in the proceedings dated 24.3.2005. The

Committee found that fifth respondent, the appellant (Jagdish Mandal) and

Dinesh Kumar Panda were the first, second and third lowest tenderers.

Having regard to the communication dated 14.3.2005 of the Superintendent

of Post Offices not to take note of Term Deposit for Rs.1,70,000, the

Committee held that the EMD submitted by fifth respondent was invalid and