Orissa High Court
M/S Pragati Construction Bargarh vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 12 May, 2023
Bench: B.R. Sarangi, M.S. Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 14856 of 2023
And
I.A. No. 6887 of 2023
M/s Pragati Construction Bargarh ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Sarangi, Sr. Adv.
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.P. Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN
ORDER
12.05.2023 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 21.04.2023 under Annexure-9, by which the objection of the petitioner has been rejected by the authority in pursuance of the order dated 04.04.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 9504 of 2023.
4. Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Sudeep Kumar Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner has complied all the eligibility criteria of the technical bid, but the same has been rejected by the authority without any application of mind. It is contended that the petitioner has got all the required machineries and equipments so as to participate in the bid, but the same has not been taken into consideration by the authority. Therefore, rejection of the bid of the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that the petitioner had made two representations before the authority within a span of three days on 20.03.2023 and 23.03.2023 through e-mail and receipt of the same was duly acknowledged by the authority. But, without considering the same, rejection of the bid of the petitioner is absolutely misconceived one and, as such, the reasons assigned by the authority while rejecting the grievance of the petitioner also cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
5. Mr. P.P. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing Page 1 of 2 for the State-opposite parties contended that as per Sub-clause (iii) of Clause-14 of the DTCN the intending tenderer (s) should have in possession of required machineries either being owned or on hire/lease required for execution of the work as per relevant clauses of specification of Road and Bridge work of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The list of plants/equipments are mandatory and minimum without which the tender shall be rejected. It is contended that the petitioner does not possess the required machineries and, as such, in the order dated 21.04.2023 the machineries which are not in possession of the petitioner have been reflected. But Mr. S.K. Sarangi, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Sudeep Kumar Sarangi, learned counsel for the petitioner refuted such contention raised by learned Addl. Government Advocate and contended that the order has been passed without any application of mind. As such, the petitioner has already furnished all the information in support of its possessing the required machineries, which has been annexed at page-77 of the writ petition.
6. Issue notice to the opposite parties.
7. Three extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 to 3 within three days enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.
8. Steps for service of notice on the opposite party no.4 by speed post be taken within three days. Office shall send notice to the said opposite party fixing an early returnable date.
9. As an interim measure, opposite parties no.1 to 3 are directed not to proceed with the tender, till 18.05.2023.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) Ashok JUDGE ASHOK KUMAR Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Date: 2023.05.12 MOHAPATRA 17:28:17 +05'30' Page 2 of 2