Orissa High Court
Unknown vs And on 30 May, 2018
W.P.(C) No. 9400 OF 2018
W.P.(C) No. 9400 OF 2018
And
I.A. No. 7971 of 2018
02. 30.05.2018 Heard Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this application seeking to
quash the note sheet in Annexure-7 by which the
Collector issued instruction to go for fresh tender and
further seeks for a direction to opposite parties to award
the contract in his favour as it has been selected
pursuant to Request for Proposal in Annexure-2 dated
06.07.2017.
Mr. S.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that Request for Proposal for outsourcing of
mechanized cleaning and housekeeping service has
been issued by Chief District Medical Officer-District
Mission Director, Bhadrak on 06.07.2017. Pursuant to
such Request for Proposal, the petitioner along with six
persons applied for the same and as per clause 3.4(a) it
has been stated that the contract shall be awarded to
the firm whose proposal will be determined to be
substantially responsive and who has offered the lowest
evaluated bid price. On the basis of the Request for
Proposal, seven persons including the petitioner
submitted their bids and the same have been
considered by the tender committee. The tender
committee in its meeting held on 11.08.2017 decided
that due to non-fulfillment of requisite documents as
per the TOR and Eligibility Criteria, six persons have
become ineligible and declared invalid. So far as
petitioner is concerned, it is stated that it has fulfilled
all the criteria as per the advertisement. Therefore, one
agency is selected for opening of financial bid for
housekeeping service. It was further decided by the
tender committee that the opening of financial bid of
Housekeeping service maybe finalized after approval of
the Collector. But the Collector instead of approving the
same for opening of financial bid, directed the A.D.M. to
examine the tender procedure who in turn passed the
order to examine the same by District Audit Officer
Bhadrak. After examining the same, the District Audit
Officer, Bhadrak stated that only one agency i.e.
SEPHRD is seen to have fulfilled all the criteria and
suggested that the authority may reject it as per para
3.5.10, but the single tender may be accepted with prior
approval of the next higher authority as per para
3.15.18 (wrongly quoted provision of 3.5.18) of the
OPWD Code. Without considering the same, the
Collector issued direction for fresh tender. It is further
contended that the nature of work to be undertaken is
not covered under the provisions of the OPWD Code nor
there is any condition stipulated under the tender
condition with regard to applicability of the OPWD Code
in tender in question.
In our view, the matter requires consideration.
Issue notice.
Addl. Government Advocate has accepted notice
on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 4. Let four extra
copies of the writ petition be served on him within three
days.
Steps to serve notice on the opposite party no.5 by
registered post with A.D. be taken within one week.
Office shall send notice fixing 26th June, 2018.
List on the date fixed in the notice.
As an interim measure, the opposite parties are
directed not to go for any fresh tender as per the
decision of the Collector under Annexure-7 dated
16.11.2017 till 26.06.2018.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
..............................
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, Vacation Judge .............................. K.R. Mohapatra, Vacation Judge Ajaya