Orissa High Court
M/S. Ashirbad Computer And Service vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 18 May, 2022
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 12878 of 2022
M/s. Ashirbad Computer and Service, ..... Petitioner
BBSR.
Mr. U.K. Samal, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Jena, Standing Counsel for
School & Mass Education Department.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
18.05.2022 Order No. W.P.(C) No. 12878 of 2022 & I.A. No. 6753 of 2022
01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a typographical error in the description of opposite party no.2 to the extent that instead of "Orissa School Education", it has been typed as "Orissa Primary Education" and as such, he may be permitted to correct the typographical error in Court itself.
3. On his oral prayer, he is permitted to correct the cause title in Court itself.
4. Heard Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Department.
5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the opposite parties 4 and 5 not technically qualified in the bid and as such they are ineligible for financial evaluation and also to declare their participation as void and ab initio.
6. Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the letter of the Government dated 02.03.2022 with regard to procurement of Laptops and Desktops for computerization of district offices under Samagra Shiksha, the technical specification for the Desktop and Laptop as recommended by the Technical Committee meeting held on Page 1 of 2 05.01.2022 has been prescribed under Annexure-A and so far as Desktop Model Certification is concerned, it was prescribed that the Desktop should have Ubuntu Linux operating system. But opposite parties 4 and 5 had not produced such certificate. Therefore, their technical bid in respect of 18 districts had been rejected. However so far as Kandhamal District is concerned though opposite parties 4 and 5 had not the requisite qualification, not only their technical bid was accepted, but also they were declared as L1 and L 2 bidder in the financial bid evaluation under Annexure-9. It is further contended that since opposite parties had not produced the Desktop Model Certification having Ubuntu Linux operating system, the bids submitted by opposite parties 3 and 4, could not have been considered to be qualified either in the technical bid or in the financial bid under Annexure-9.
7. With regard to declaration of opposite parties 3 and 4 as L1 and L2 bidder under Annexure-9 so far as Kandhamal district is concerned, Mr. S. Jena, learned Standing Counsel for School & Mass Education Departments wants to take instruction in this matter.
8. Issue notice to the opposite parties both in the writ petition as well as in the I.A.
9. Three extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department within three days for enabling him to obtain instruction in this matter. 10 Requisites for issuance of notice to opposite parties 4 and 5 by registered post with A.D. shall be filed within three days.
11. It is open to the petitioner to pursue its interim application, if so advised, before the Vacation Court.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(SAVITRI RATHO)
Arun/Sukanta JUDGE
Page 2 of 2