Orissa High Court
*** vs Union Of India on 9 January, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
Samir Ranjan Pradhan Aged about 28 years Son of Sri Prasanna Pradhan At: Nanapada P.O./P.S.: Nirakarpur, District: Khordha ... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. Union of India Represented through Senior Divisional Commercial Manager East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division District: Khordha.
2. Station Superintendent Nirakarpur, East Coast Railway Nirakarpur, At/P.O.: Nirakarpur District: Khordha.
3. Miss Jalli Mohanty Daughter of Natabar Mohanty At: Icchapur, P.O.: Baulabandha P.S.: Banapur District: Khordha. ... Opposite parties.
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sarat Chandra Mekap, Advocate W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 1 of 44 For the Opposite party : Mr. Bhabani Shankar Rayaguru, Nos.1 & 2 Central Government Counsel P R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 09.01.2025 :: Date of Order : 09.01.2025 O RDER Challenge is laid against the selection/award vide Order No.6150/SDCM/KUR/STBA/NSG-6 Category Station/NKP, dated 16.12.2022 issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager of East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Division-opposite party No.1 (Annexure-
5), wherein and whereby the opposite party No.3 was awarded as "Station Ticket Booking Agent" at Nirakarpur Station for a period of three years by way of draw of lots.
1.1. The petitioner, claiming to have experience as Station Ticket Booking Agent from 01.11.2019 to 31.10.2022, being not successful in the process of "draw of lots", questions the decision making process of the opposite parties vis-à-vis selection of participant-opposite party No.3 by draw of lots.
1.2. He has, therefore, approached this Court by way of this writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 2 of 44 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):
―It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this case after hearing both the sides may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other Writ or direction which will be deem fit and proper to this case by directing Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Khurda Road East Coast Railway, Khorda Road Division, Khordha allow/select by extending for the post of present petitioner as Station Ticket Booking Agent (STBA) at Nirakarpur Railway Station taking into account the experience in service since 24.09.2019 (Annexure-1) till date;
And, further pleased this Hon'ble Court may kindly be quash the selection of opposite party No.3 as STBA at Nirakarpur Station vide Letter dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-5) for end of justice and equity;
And pass any other order(s), direction(s) as would deem fit and proper;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.‖ Facts as narrated in the writ petition:
2. The petitioner, awarded/selected as Station Ticket Booking Agent ("STBA", for brevity) at Nirakarpur Railway Station in the year 2019 by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Khurda Road- opposite party No.1 vide Letter No.7272/SDCM/KUR/ W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 3 of 44 STBA/E Category Station/NKP, dated 24.09.2019 and continued till 23.10.2022, responded to Tender Notice No.SDCM/KUR/STBA/Notification/Phase-XVII, dated 27.09.2022, i.e., "NOTIFICATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF STATION TICKET BOOK AGENTS (STBA) AT NSG-6 CATEGORY STATIONS (17) OVER KHURDA ROAD DIVISION" of East Coast Railway for issuing Unreserved Tickets through Computerized Unreserved Ticketing System (Annexure-2).
2.1. Three candidates, viz., Ms. Jalli Mohanty (opposite party No.3), Ms. Manisa Mausumi Jena and Sri Samir Ranjan Pradhan (petitioner) were found to have quoted zero per cent commission on monthly sales turnover of under the third slab. In order to select one amongst the three and award appointment as STBA at Nirakarpur Station, by Letter No.SDCM/KUR/STBA/ Selection/NKP, dated 09.12.2022 (Annexure-3), the Divisional Commercial Manager intimated all these participants to attend the "draw of lots", to be held on 13.12.2022 at 15.00 Hours in the Chamber of Assistant Commercial Manager, East Cost Railway, Khurda Road.
2.2. In the draw of lots in presence of the petitioner and the opposite party No.3-Ms. Jalli Mohanty (as the other participant remained absent), the opposite party W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 4 of 44 No.3 was declared successful and her bid @ 0% (zero per cent) on monthly sales turnover against the 3rd slab (>Rs.1,00,000) for the contract of Station Ticket Booking Agent at Nirakarpur Station for three years has been accepted, which was intimated by Letter No. 6150-- SDCM/KUR/STBA/„NSG-6‟ Category Station/ NKP, dated 16.12.2022 issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Khurda Road (Annexure-5).
2.3. For better comprehension, the text of said Letter is extracted hereunder:
―East Coast Railway Khurda Road Division Office of the Senior Divisional Manager Khurda Road No.SDCM/KUR/STBA/NSG 6 Category Station/NKP/6150 dated 16.12.2022 To Miss Jalli Mohanty Daughter of Sri Natabar Mohanty At: Ichhapur, P.O.: Baulabandha P.S.: Banapur, District: Khordha Odisha - 752 034, Mob:8455947674.
Sub.: Award of Station Ticket Booking Agent (STBA) at Nirakarpur (NKP) Station for a period three (03) years.
Ref: Your Tender Offer Lr. No.Nil, dated 21.10.2022.
*** W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 5 of 44 Dear Sir/Madam, It is a great pleasure to advise you that your bid @ 0% (Zero Percent) on monthly sales turnover against the 3rd Slab(>Rs.1,00,000) for the contract of Station Ticket Booking Agent at Nirakarpur (NKP) Station for a period of Three (03) years from the date of commencement has been accepted by the Competent Authority.
1) The scope of work of the contract is as follows:
(i) The cost of hardware and software (including maintenance), electricity and hiring of channel will be borne by the Railways. The space will also be provided to them by the Railway free of cost.
(ii) The STBA shall deposit the cash collected through sale of tickets, to the concerned SM/ASM of the Station on duty on 8 hourly Shift basis as prevalent on that Station.
(iii) STBA will not sublet/assign or transfer the rights or obligations arising out of the contract. In case of death of agent, his/her legal heir(s) will be allowed to act as STBA for the unexpired period of agreement by the competent authority subject to fulfilment other eligibility criteria of STBA.
(iv) If STBA desires, he may nominate another person, for which provision will be there in the standard agreement, with prior approval of the Railway authorities as per extant rule.
Both the STBA and the additional person W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 6 of 44 nominated by him to sell tickets shall be issued a photo identity card by the concerned Division and their name(s) will also be displayed on a notice board at the station premises.
(v) The disbursement of unreserved tickets by STBA will be governed by the timings as decided by the concerned Railway, keeping in view the local conditions.
(vi) STBA shall be allowed to sell all types of non-concessional unreserved tickets issued through UTS including platform tickets and season tickets. Renewal of season ticket shall also be permitted. All other concessional tickets requiring documentary proof before issue of ticket can be issued by STBA only when endorsed and permitted by the SM/ASM concerned.
(vii) The facility of ‗NI' (Not issued) will be available to the STBA only when authorized/endorsed by the concerned SM/ ASM.
(viii) Cancellation of ticket: The facility of cancellation of ticket may be extended to STBA only when authorized/endorsed by concerned SM/ASM beforehand.
(ix) The Railway official in charge of the station i.e. SM/ASM will be responsible for the safe custody of the ticket rolls and it shall be his/her duty to daily hand over/take over the ticket roll from the STBA. Proper record of W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 7 of 44 ticket rolls issued to the STBA will be maintained at the station.
(x) Shift summary and details summary of transaction handled by STBA shall be extracted through UTS and the STBA shall deposit the case accordingly to the SM/ASM at the end of the shift.
(xi) The agreement can be terminated from each side without assigning reasons by giving a notice of Thirty (30) days.
(xii) Please remit a refundable amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) with SM, SS/NKP towards Security Deposit in form of Money Receipt through UTS at Nirakarpur (NKP) Railway Station.
(xiii) Attend this office within seven (07) days from the date of issue of this letter along with the above said Security Deposit (Money receipt) and a Police verification certificate from the police Station serving your locality that no Criminal case is pending against you and two stamp papers Rs.100/-(Hundred Rupees) each to execute the agreement.
(xiv) Zonal Railways will have powers to prescribe working guidelines within the framework of the scheme.
(xv) At any stage, failure to comply above instructions will result in forfeiture of your EMD with termination of the said awarded contract without assigning any notice or any W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 8 of 44 reason and no claim whatsoever will be entertained therefore.
Please acknowledge the receipt.
Yours Sincerely, Sd/-
For Sr. Divl. Commercial Manager Khurda Road.‖ 2.4. Dissatisfied thereby with a prayer to show intervention in Award dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-5) issued by the opposite party No.1, the petitioner beseeching to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India approached this court with the instant writ petition.
Hearing:
3. Pleadings being complete and exchanged between counsel for the respective parties, on consent this matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
3.1. Heard Sri Sarat Chandra Mekap, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Bhabani Shankar Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 & 2.
3.2. No notice was issued to opposite party No.3 and as such, none represented on her behalf.
W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 9 of 44Rival contentions and submissions:
4. Sri Sarat Chandra Mekap, learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner and the opposite party No.3 having quoted zero per cent commission on monthly sale turnover against third slab for award of contract at Nirakarpur Station to work as Station Ticket Booking Agent, the opposite party No.3 was given the contract for three years ignoring the experience gained by the petitioner for such work. Though an experience certificate has been issued in favour of the petitioner and available with the opposite party Nos.1 and 2, the draw of lots should not have been undertaken on 13.12.2022. The approach of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 by holding the opposite party No.3 successful by adopting the method of "draw of lots" for appointment as STBA is not only erroneous but also contrary to the Master Circular dated 22.02.2022 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board (Annexure-A/1 enclosed to counter affidavit).
4.1. He vehemently argued that the petitioner has the experience certificate and worked as Station Ticket Booking Agent from 2019 to 2022. He quoted the bid at zero per cent commission on the monthly sales turnover against the third slab, whereas the opposite party No.3 has quoted bid at zero per cent commission W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 10 of 44 on monthly sales turnover against third slab. Therefore, the petitioner should have been considered as his experience certificate should have been honoured and as such the petitioner should have been given the contract by approving his bid.
5. Per contra, Sri Bhabani Shankar Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel relying on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the selection for award of Station Ticket Booking Agent at Nirakarpur Railway Station has been made following the Guidelines of the Railway Board. In presence of the petitioner and the opposite party No.3, the respective bids were considered by draw of lots. The petitioner, having participated in the "draw of lots", and accepted the result/outcome of the draw of lots by putting signature on the result sheet without any objection, cannot assail the process of selection.
5.1. He further strenuously argued that the petitioner having participated in the draw of lots, after being unsuccessful is estopped from questioning the result in the garb of challenging the decision making process. Urged that a person cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath, he contended that the transparent modality was adopted in consonance with the method W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 11 of 44 provided under the Master Circular dated 22.02.2022. He laid much stress on the facts asserted at paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party Nos.1& 2, which is quoted hereunder:
―That in reply to the averments made in Paragraph-8 of the writ petition, the deponent respectfully submits that the selection for appointment of STBA at Nirakarpur Railway Station has conducted and completed thereby following due selection procedure in accordance with the guideline issued by the Railway Board. The draw of lots was held at 15.00 Hrs. on 13.12.2022 in the chamber of Assistant Commercial Manager (G), Khurda Road in presence of two candidates namely Miss Jalli Mohanty and Sri Samir Ranjan Pradhan (petitioner) and another candidate Miss Manisa Muasumi Jena could not remain present due to her personal problems and she had intimated that she had no objection if the draw of lots will be conducted in her absence. Therefore, 09(nine) Nos. of homogenous slips (three for each candidate) containing the name of the three eligible candidates were put in a box and stirred well before the candidates and a child named Arnab Bharati, aged about 06 years was invited to pick out one slip to select the winner. In the draw of lots, Miss Jalli Mohanty (opp. Party No.3) came out as a successful candidate to be appointed as STBA at Nirakarpur Station. All the three candidates accepted the result of the draw of Lots without any prejudice and the petitioner had also accepted the same, but at later stage, the petitioner after accepted the said terms and condition, has challenged the selection procedure which is unjust and W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 12 of 44 improper, for which the prayer of the petitioner should not be entertained by this Hon'ble Court.‖ 5.2. Learned Central Government Counsel relied on Clause
(e) of "Selection of Station Ticket Booking Agents"
forming part of Master Circular dated 22.02.2022 enclosed as Annexure-A/1 to the counter affidavit, which is reproduced hereunder:
―e. The candidate who opts for least commission (in Slab-3) on monthly sales turnover, shall be engaged as STBA (Only, the revenue from STBA operated, shifts shall be considered for the purpose of calculating the commission of STBA). In case more than one applicant quotes the same rate, the selection will be based on the draw of lots in a transparent manner in public.‖ 5.3. He has taken this Court to Clause 9 of the Notification dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure-2) issued by opposite party No1, which is as follows:
―9. Selection of STBA will be done by the Tender Committee. Out of the applicants fulfilling the eligibility condition, the candidate (s) who opts for the least commission (in the 3rd Slab i.e., 4% commission slab) on monthly sales turnover basis will be selected for appointment. Where more than one applicant quotes the same commission in the 3rd Slab i.e., four (4)%, then selection may be done through draw of lots. Candidate(s) should quote the W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 13 of 44 percentage of commission from 0% to 4% in the 3rd slab. Negative percentage of commission will not be considered. Candidate(s) can also quote the percentage of commission in the 4% slab in fraction up to two decimal points. Candidate(s) quoting more than two decimal points will not be considered.‖ 5.4. Therefore, Sri Bhabani Shankar Rayaguru, learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the petitioner could not be successful in the draw of lots wherein he participated with his eyes wide open, and thereafter challenged the selection process. He vehemently contended that such a course on the part of the petitioner is not acceptable in the eye of law as he has accepted the result. Therefore, he fervently requested for dismissal of the writ petition.
Consideration of rival contentions and conclusion:
6. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties, considered the submissions made. On perusal of the record, this Court finds the fact that the petitioner has blown hot and cold in the same breath. The petitioner along with two others was intimated to participate in the draw of lots for selection of Station Ticket Booking Agent as three participants have quoted the same percentage of commission on the sales turnover. Having participated in the process, being not successful by way of draw of W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 14 of 44 lots, he is estopped from challenging the successful bid of the opposite party No.3.
6.1. It may be worthwhile to have reference to result sheet of "draw of lots" as enclosed to counter affidavit at Annexure-B/2. Said document is reproduced herein below:
―Draw of Lots for Selection of STBA at Nirakarpur (NKP) Station in terms of Senior DCM/KUR's Letter No.SDCM/KUR/STBA/Selection/NKP, dated 09.122022, we, the following eligible candidates remained present at the time of their draw held in the Chamber of Assistant Commercial Manager (G) East Coast Railway, Khurda Road at 15:00 Hrs on 13.12.2022 for selection of STBA at Nirakarpur (NKP) Station The draw was conducted in a fair way in our presence. A child named Sri Arnab Bharti aged about 6 years, Son of Sri S. Yadav, OS/Commercial/KUR was invited to pick up the name of the winner from the chits containing the name of eligible candidates. A total number of nine slips/chits (three chits/slips for each candidate) was put in the box and the child was asked to pick up one slip to decide the winner.
In the draw of lots, Ms. Jalli Mohanthi, applicant serial number was selected to be appointed as STBA at Nirakarpur Station.
We accept the result of the draw without any prejudice and we have no objection for appointment of Jalimanthi as STBA at Nirakarpur Station.
W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 15 of 44Sd/- Samir Ranjan Pradhan 13.12.2022 Sd/- Jalli Mohanty 13.12.2022 Manisa Mausumi Jena was absent.‖ 6.2. Since the petitioner had participated in the process of selection consciously and with eyes wide open, at this stage when the opposite party No.3 has been declared successful, he is precluded from challenging the decision making process. Scrutiny of Notification dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure-2) clearly laid down that where more than one applicant quoted the same commission in the 3rd slab, then the selection would be made through "draw of lots". This modality is in consonance with the method prescribed in the Master Circular dated 22.02.2022. Therefore, the petitioner sought to approbate and reprobate at the same time which is not permissible under law.
6.3. The situation that arose in the instant case would make the principle of estoppel applicable. The said principle would prevent a party from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what they have previously stated or done. Estoppel is a legal doctrine that aims to prevent injustice by holding parties accountable for their previous statements or actions. It operates as a W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 16 of 44 bar to the party‟s ability to make assertions or claims that are inconsistent with their prior conduct. In this case, by not challenging its own rejection of bid, the petitioner is effectively precluded from challenging the successful bid on grounds of bias or mala fide. The principle of estoppel is based on fairness and equity. It ensures that parties are held to their previous positions and prevents them from taking advantage of their own prior actions or omissions. If the petitioner is allowed to challenge the successful bid after accepting its rejection or disqualification, it would undermine the integrity of the tender process and create uncertainty and instability in contractual relationships.
6.4. It is important to take note of that estoppel is not an absolute rule and can be subject to exceptions. For example, if there is evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the author/Tender Committee, it may be possible for the petitioner to challenge the successful bid on the ground of bias or mala fide. However, in the absence of such exceptional circumstances, estoppel would generally apply to prevent such challenges.
6.5. In Sterling Computers Ltd. Vrs. M & N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445 = (1993) 1 SCR 81 it has been held:
W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 17 of 44―Under some special circumstances a discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess the overall situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. If the decisions have been taken in bona fide manner although not strictly following the norms laid down by the Courts, such decisions are upheld on the principle laid down by Justice Holmes, that Courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of ‗play in the joints' to the executive.‖ 6.6. In the context of challenging the tender condition which is alleged to have been tailor-made to suit a particular bidder, and scope of intervention when mala fide is levelled against tendering authority, in Balaji Ventures Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 295 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as follows:
―5.1 Now so far as the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petitions is concerned, what was challenged before the High Court was one of the tender conditions/clauses. The High Court has specifically observed and noted the justification for providing clause 1.12(V). The said clause was to be applied to all the tenderers/bidders. It cannot be said that such clause was a tailor made to suit a particular bidder. It was applicable to all. Owner W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 18 of 44 should always have the freedom to provide the eligibility criteria and/or the terms and conditions of the bid unless it is found to be arbitrary, mala fide and/or tailor made. The bidder/tenderer cannot be permitted to challenge the bid condition/clause which might not suit him and/or convenient to him. As per the settled proposition of law as such it is an offer to the prospective bidder/tenderer to compete and submit the tender considering the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender document.
5.2 In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors Vrs.
Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489, it is observed in para 20 as under:
―20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the State instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 19 of 44 author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case.‖ 5.3 In the case of Montecarlo Limited Vrs. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 272, it is observed and held that the tender inviting authority is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and tender documents, so long as there are no mala fides/arbitrariness etc. It is further observed and held that the Government must have freedom of contract and such action can be tested by applying Wednesbury principle and also examining whether it suffers from arbitrariness or bias or mala fides.‖ 6.7. In Galaxy Transport Agencies Vrs. New J.K. Roadways, (2020) 12 SCR 1090 = 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035, it was held:
―15. In the judgment in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vrs.
AMR Dev Prabha, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 335, under the heading ―Deference to authority's interpretation‖, this Court stated:
―51. Lastly, we deem it necessary to deal with another fundamental problem. It is obvious that Respondent No. 1 seeks to only enforce terms of the NIT. Inherent in such exercise is interpretation of contractual terms. However, it must be noted that judicial interpretation of W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 20 of 44 contracts in the sphere of commerce stands on a distinct footing than while interpreting statutes.
52. In the present facts, it is clear that BCCL and India have laid recourse to Clauses of the NIT, whether it be to justify condonation of delay of Respondent No. 6 in submitting performance bank guarantees or their decision to resume auction on grounds of technical failure. BCCL having authored these documents, is better placed to appreciate their requirements and interpret them. (Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vrs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC
818)
53. The High Court ought to have deferred to this understanding, unless it was patently perverse or mala fide. Given how BCCL's interpretation of these clauses was plausible and not absurd, solely differences in opinion of contractual interpretation ought not to have been grounds for the High Court to come to a finding that the appellant committed illegality.‖ 6.8. In Jagdish Mandal Vrs. State of Odisha, (2007) 14 SCC 517, where dealing with the exercise of power of judicial review in the matters relating to tenders and award of contracts, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India identified the special features to be borne in W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 21 of 44 mind while judicially reviewing award of contracts. The following are the observations:
―22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made ―lawfully‖ and not to check whether choice or decision is ―sound‖. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.‖ 6.9. In Heinz India (P) Ltd. Vrs. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 443, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court examined the legal dimensions of judicial review and quoted with approval the following passage from Reid Vrs. Secy. of State for Scotland, (1999) 1 All ER 481, which succinctly sums up the law:W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 22 of 44
―Judicial review involves a challenge to the legal validity of the decision. It does not allow the court of review to examine the evidence with a view to forming its own view about the substantial merits of the case. It may be that the tribunal whose decision is being challenged has done something which it had no lawful authority to do. It may have abused or misused the authority which it had. It may have departed from the procedures which either by statute or at common law as a matter of fairness it ought to have observed. As regards the decisions itself it may be found to be perverse, or irrational or grossly disproportionate to what was required. Or the decision may be found to be erroneous in respect of a legal deficiency, as for example, through the absence of evidence, or of sufficient evidence, to support it, or through account being taken of irrelevant matter, or through a failure for any reason to take account of a relevant matter, or through some misconstruction of the terms of the statutory provision which the decision-maker is required to apply. But while the evidence may have to be explored in order to see if the decision is vitiated by such legal deficiencies it is perfectly clear that in case of review, as distinct from an ordinary appeal, the court may not set about forming its own preferred view of evidence.‖ 6.10. There is no gainsaying that what is to be examined is the legality and regularity of the process leading to award of contract. What the Court has to constantly keep in mind is that it does not sit in appeal over the soundness of the decision. The Court can only examine whether the decision making process was W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 23 of 44 fair, reasonable and transparent. In cases involving award of contracts, the Court ought to exercise judicial restraint where the decision is bona fide with no perceptible injury to public interest. In Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & S. Ltd. Vrs. DMRC Ltd., (2014) 2 SCR 824, it has been referred to thus:
―29. *** This Court has in Federation of Railway Officers Association Vrs. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCR 1085, stated the wholesome principle applicable in such situations in the following words:
‗Further, when technical questions arise and experts in the field have expressed various views and all those aspects have been taken into consideration by the Government in deciding the matter, could it still be said that this Court should re-examine to interfere with the same. The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschews from considering irrelevant factors and acts reasonably within the parameters of the law, courts would keep off the same.'
30. Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in N.D. Jayal Vrs. Union of India, (2004) 9 SCC 362 where this Court observed:
‗This Court cannot sit in judgment over the cutting edge of scientific analysis relating to the safety of any project. Experts in science may themselves W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 24 of 44 differ in their opinions while taking decisions on matters related to safety and allied aspects. The opposing viewpoints of the experts will also have to be given due consideration after full application of mind. When the Government or the authorities concerned after due consideration of all viewpoints and full application of mind took a decision, then it is not appropriate for the court to interfere.' ***‖ 6.11. In Jagruti Welfare Organisation Vrs. State of Odisha, 124 (2017) CLT 1041 = 2017 SCC OnLine Ori 485, this Court referred to Maa Binda Express Carrier Vrs.
Northeast Frontier Railway, (2014) 3 SCC 760 = AIR 2014 SC 390, and observed that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, dealing with the scope of judicial review in contract matters, held as follows:
―8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contract by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly recognize that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 25 of 44 the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well-settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So also the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process.‖ 6.12. Under the aforesaid premise, given the ruling of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, there is no occasion for this Court to examine the factual aspects which the petitioner wishes this Court to do. It may be noted that the petitioner has signed on the result sheet without any objection. Furthermore, pursuant to instruction dated 09.12.2022, the petitioner, having participated, accepted the result of the "draw of lots". The procedure as suggested in the Notification for appointment of Station Ticket Booking Agents (Annexure-2) in consonance with Master Circular dated 22.02.2022 (Annexure-A/1) being not challenged prior to W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 26 of 44 participation, the petitioner cannot now approbate and at the same time reprobate.
6.13. In V. Chandrasekaran Vrs. The Administrative Officer, (2012) 10 SCR 603 = 2012 INSC 407 it has been made clear as follows:
―In Cauvery Coffee Traders, Mangalore Vrs. Hornor Resources (International) Company Limited, (2011) 10 SCC 420, this Court considered a large number of judgments on the issue of estoppels and held as under:
‗A party cannot be permitted to ‗blow hot and cold', ‗fast and loose' or ‗approbate and reprobate'. Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience. *** The doctrine of estoppel by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule in equity. By that law, a person may be precluded by his actiofis or conduct or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he otherwise would have had.‖ 6.14. This Court may have regard to place herewith the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf Vrs. Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 15 SCR 984 = 2023 INSC 949, wherein the doctrine of approbate and reprobate has been enunciated:W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 27 of 44
―15. The conduct of a party assumes significance. If a party is likely to have an undue advantage, despite the availability of an opportunity to raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction at an earlier point of time, it should not be permitted to do so during the execution proceedings. In other words, a plaintiff shall not be made to suffer by the passive act of the defendant in submitting to the jurisdiction. One has to see the consequence while taking note of the huge pendency of the cases before various Courts in the country. There is no gainsaying that but for the adverse decree suffered, a judgment- debtor would not have ventured to raise such a plea. It is clearly a case of an afterthought to suit his convenience. He cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Though we are conscious about the earlier precedents dealing with the stage at which such a plea can be raised, much water has flown under the bridge in terms of the ground reality. Union of India and Others Vrs. N. Murugesan and Others, (2022) 2 SCC 25, ‗Approbate and reprobate
26. These phrases are borrowed from the Scots law. They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold. The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he objects to an instrument, he will not get the benefit he wants cannot be allowed to do so W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 28 of 44 while enjoying the fruits. One cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle has to be applied with more vigour as a common law principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle. It is also a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party.
We have already dealt with the provisions of the Contract Act concerning the conduct of a party, and his presumption of knowledge while confirming an offer through his acceptance unconditionally.
27. We would like to quote the following judgments for better appreciation and understanding of the said principle:
27.1. Nagubai Ammal Vrs. B. Shama Rao, 1956 SCR 451 = AIR 1956 SC 593: (AIR pp. 601-
02, para 23) ‗23. But it is argued by Sri Krishnaswami Ayyangar that as the proceedings in OS. No. 92 of 1938-39 are relied on as barring the plea that the decree and sale in OS. No. 100 of 1919-20 are not collusive, not on the ground of res judicata or estoppel but on the principle that a person cannot both approbate W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 29 of 44 and reprobate. It is immaterial that the present appellants were not parties thereto, and the decision in Verschures Creameries Ltd. Vrs. Hull & Netherlands Steamship Co. Ltd., (1921) 2 KB 608 (CA), and in particular, the observations of Scrutton, LJ., at p. 611 were quoted in support of this position. There, the facts were that an agent delivered goods to the customer contrary to the instructions of the principal, who thereafter filed a suit against the purchaser for price of goods and obtained a decree. Not having obtained satisfaction, the principal next filed a suit against the agent for damages on the ground of negligence and breach of duty. It was held that such an action was barred. The ground of the decision is that when on the same facts, a person has the right to claim one of two reliefs and with full knowledge he elects to claim one and obtains it, it is not open to him thereafter to go back on his election and claim the alternative relief. The principle was thus stated by Bankes, L.J. :
(Verschures Creameries Ltd. case, (1921) 2 KB 608 (CA), KB p. 611) ‗... Having elected to treat the delivery to him as an authorised delivery they cannot treat the same act as a W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 30 of 44 misdelivery. To do so would be to approbate and reprobate the same act.' The observations of Scrutton, L.J. on which the appellants rely are as follows: (Verschures Creameries Ltd.
case, (1921) 2 KB 608 (CA), KB pp.
611-12) ‗... A plaintiff is not permitted to ―approbate and reprobate‖. The phrase is apparently borrowed from the Scotch law, where it is used to express the principle embodied in our doctrine of election-- namely, that no party can accept and reject the same instrument:
Ker Vrs. Wauchope, (1819) 1 Bligh PC 1 at p. 21 = 4 ER 1 at p. 8 : Douglas-
Menzies Vrs. Umphelby, 1908 AC 224 at p. 232 (PC). The doctrine of election is not however confined to instruments. A person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. That is to approbate and reprobate the transaction.' It is clear from the above observations that the maxim that a person cannot ―approbate and reprobate‖ is only one application of the doctrine of election, and that its operation must be confined W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 31 of 44 to reliefs claimed in respect of the same transaction and to the persons who are parties thereto. The law is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. XIII, p. 464, para 512:
‗On the principle that a person may not approbate and reprobate, a species of estoppel has arisen which seems to be intermediate between estoppel by record and estoppel in pais, and may conveniently be referred to here. Thus a party cannot, after taking advantage under an order (e.g. payment of costs), be heard to say that it is invalid and ask to set it aside, or to set up to the prejudice of persons who have relied upon it a case inconsistent with that upon which it was founded; nor will he be allowed to go behind an order made in ignorance of the true facts to the prejudice of third parties who have acted on it.' 27.2. State of Punjab Vrs. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu, (2014) 15 SCC 144:
‗22. The doctrine of ―approbate and reprobate‖ is only a species of estoppel, it implies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. (Vide CIT Vrs. MR. P. Firm Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216.W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 32 of 44
23. It is settled proposition of law that once an order has been passed, it is complied with, accepted by the other party and derived the benefit out of it, he cannot challenge it on any ground.
(Vide Maharashtra SRTC Vrs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, AIR 1969 SC
329). In R.N. Gosain Vrs. Yashpal Dhir, (1992) 4 SCC 683 this Court has observed as under:
‗10. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate.
This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that ‗a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage'.' ***
25. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. Vrs. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470, made an observation that a party cannot be permitted to ―blow hot and cold‖, ―fast and loose‖ or ―approbate and reprobate‖. Where one knowingly W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 33 of 44 accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience.
26. It is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel, the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when he has to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had.' 27.3. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. Vrs. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470:
‗I. Approbate and reprobate
15. A party cannot be permitted to ―blow hot-blow cold‖, ―fast and loose‖ or ―approbate and reprobate‖. Where one knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order, W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 34 of 44 he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself.
This rule is applied to ensure equity, however, it must not be applied in such a manner so as to violate the principles of what is right and of good conscience. [Vide Nagubai Ammal Vrs. B. Shama Rao, 1956 SCR 451 = AIR 1956 SC 593, CIT Vrs. V. MR. P. Firm Muar, AIR 1965 SC 1216, Ramesh Chandra Sankla Vrs. Vikram Cement, (2008) 14 SCC 58, Pradeep Oil Corpn. Vrs. MCD, (2011) 5 SCC 270, Cauvery Coffee Traders Vrs. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 420 and V. Chandrasekaran Vrs.
Administrative Officer, (2012) 12 SCC 133].
16. Thus, it is evident that the doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppel-- the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate is inherent in it. The doctrine of estoppel by election is one among the species of estoppel in pais (or equitable estoppel), which is a rule of equity. By this law, a person may be precluded, by way of his actions, or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he would have otherwise had.‖ W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 35 of 44 6.15. In Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings Private Limited Vrs. Official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited, (2018) 10 SCC 707, the Supreme Court in paragraphs- 12 and 13 held as under:
―12. A litigant can take different stands at different times but cannot take contradictory stands in the same case. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands. The untenability of an inconsistent stand in the same case was considered in Amar Singh Vrs. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 69 observing as follows:
‗50. This Court wants to make it clear that an action at law is not a game of chess. A litigant who comes to court and invokes its writ jurisdiction must come with clean hands. He cannot prevaricate and take inconsistent positions.'
13. A similar view was taken in Joint Action Committee of Airlines Pilots Associations of India Vrs. Director General of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCR 1019, observing:
‗12. The doctrine of election is based on the rule of estoppels- the principle that one cannot approbate and reprobate inheres in it. The doctrine of estoppels by election is one of the species of estoppels in pais (or equitable estoppels), which is a rule in equity. *** Taking inconsistent pleas by a party makes its conduct far from satisfactory. Further, the W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 36 of 44 parties should not blow hot and cold by taking inconsistent stands and prolong proceedings unnecessarily.' ***‖
7. Having such well settled proposition of law, the present factual aspect that the term for which the petitioner claimed to have experience to work as Station Ticket Booking Agent has lapsed in the year 2022 itself. Therefore, further tender was advertised by "Notification for Appointment of Station Ticket Booking Agents" at 17 NSG-6 Category Stations over Khurda Road Division on 27.09.2022 vide Annexure-2 wherein the procedure for selection has specifically been laid in the event more than one applicant quoted the same commission on sales turnover in the 3rd slab, the selection may be done through "draw of lots". The selection by draw of lots as conducted by the author of the Notification dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure-2) does not smack bias or tainted with mala fide. Having found from the document made available by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 vide Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit, this Court appreciates the manner of conduct of "draw by lots" and the decision making process for selecting the Station Ticket Booking Agent was fair, reasonable and transparent. Hence, this Court desists to conduct roving enquiry in this respect on mere allegation of mala fide without putting forth material W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 37 of 44 or impleading the authority in person as party to the proceeding.
7.1. After participating in the process of "draw of lots" as Ms. Jalli Mohanty (opposite party No.3), Ms. Manisa Mausumi Jena and Sri Samir Ranjan Pradhan (petitioner) quoted zero per cent commission on monthly sales turnover of more than Rs.1,00,000/-
under third slab, and the opposite parties have described the mode of conduct of "draw of lots"
explicitly vide document at Annexure-B/1, where the petitioner as well as the opposite party No.3 put their signatures on 13.12.2022 as token of acknowledging the acceptance of result of such draw of lots. Such a process of selection by adopting the method by "draw of lots" is in adherence to the modality prescribed in the Master Circular on implementation of Station Ticket Booking Agent Scheme vide No.2018/TG-I/20/ P/STBA, dated 22.02.2022 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board with reference to Commercial Circular No.4 of 2020 which relates to Master Circular on implementation of STBA Scheme at NSG-5 and NSG-6. On the principles of law as set forth by the Hon‟ble Courts qua participation in selection process, the instant writ petition, sans merit, deserves to be dismissed.W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 38 of 44
7.2. In the case of D. Sarojakumari Vrs. R. Helen Thilakom, (2017) 9 SCR 512, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in no ambiguous terms made the following observations:
―4. The main ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that Respondent No.1 having taken part in the selection process could not be permitted to challenge the same after she was unsuccessful in getting selected. The law is well settled that once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection.
5. In Dr. G. Sarna Vrs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585 the petitioner after appearing in the interview for the post of Professor and having not been selected pleaded that the experts were biased. This Court did not permit the petitioner to raise this issue and held as follows:
‗15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to get into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 39 of 44 so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. ***'
6. In Madan Lal & Ors. Vrs. State of J&K & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 486, the petitioner laid challenge to the manner and method of conducting viva-voce test after they had appeared in the same and were unsuccessful. This Court held as follows:
‗9. *** Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. ***'
7. In Manish Kumar Shahi Vrs. State of Bilrar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court held as follows:
‗23. *** Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 40 of 44 merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition.'
8. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others Vrs. Anil Joshi and Others, (2013) 11 SCC 309 the petitioners took part in the process of selection made under the general Rules. Having appeared in the interview and not being successful they challenged the method of recruitment itself. They were not permitted to raise such an objection. This Court held as follows:
‗24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.'
9. Same view has been taken in Madras Institute of Development Studies and Another Vrs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan and Others, (2016) 1 SCC 455.W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 41 of 44
10. The Kerala High Court did not note the above mentioned judgments and ignored the well settled position of law in rejecting the specific plea raised by the appellant herein that the appellant could not raise the issue that no direct recruitment should have been conducted once she had applied for and taken part in the selection process by direct recruitment.
11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to tum around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court.
In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised.‖ 7.3. With the above enunciation of law, it is unequivocal to have the opinion that after participating in the process of selection pursuant to intimation vide Letter dated 09.12.2022 to participate in the "draw of lots"
W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 42 of 44(Annexure-3), and by putting his signature as a token of acceptance of the result without any demur showing acknowledgment of acceptance of the result of "Draw of Lots for Selection of STBA at Nirakarpur (NKP) Station" (Annexure-B/1), the petitioner is estopped to turn round to question the process of selection of successful bid by "Draw of Lots", in the circumstances when there is more than one participant-applicant, who quoted the same percentage of commission on the monthly sales turnover in the third slab.
8. Ergo, the petitioner could not successfully lay challenge in the writ petition against the decision making process and decision to go for selection by "Draw of Lots" when three participants namely Ms. Jalli Mohanty (opposite party No.3), Ms. Manisa Mausumi Jena and Sri Samir Ranjan Pradhan (petitioner) quoted zero per cent commission on monthly sales turnover of under third slab. The petitioner is, hence, estopped from challenging the successful bid having participated in the process of selection by way of draw of lots. Thus, having not raised any objection at the relevant stage of draw of lots, the petitioner is precluded from raking up the issue after the opposite party No.3 became successful in the selection process of the Station Ticket Booking Agent and awarded the contract.W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 43 of 44
9. For the reasons ascribed hitherto and discussions made supra, the writ petition, devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT High Court of Orissa, Cuttack MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer The 9 January, 2025//Laxmikant/Suchitra th Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 10-Jan-2025 17:50:38 W.P.(C) No.853 of 2023 Page 44 of 44