Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Mr. R.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that pursuant to the tender call notice issued on 30.04.2016 (Annexure-1), the petitioner participated in the tender process and was found to be L-1. His case was recommended by the Chief Engineer, World Bank Project, Odisha for approval by the Government, as the tender amount was exceeding rupees ten crores. There was no valid and justifiable reason to cancel the said tender and invite a fresh tender on 30.11.2016, when the inaction on the part of the authority in approving the L-1 bidder was pending consideration before this Court in W.P.(C) No.19976/2016. Therefore, such cancellation of tender dated 30.04.2016 and issuance of fresh tender dated 30.11.2016 is not justified and hit by the principle of lis pendence. It is further contended that, when in one hand State counsel was asking for time to get instructions or file counter affidavit on 30.11.2016, on the very same day the cancellation of earlier tender dated 30.04.2016 in respect of the work in question and issuance of fresh tender should not have been done without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, when admittedly he was L-1 assessed by the tender committee and recommendation was pending before the Government for approval. It is also contended that the action of the authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, the petitioner seeks interference of this Court. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on M/s. Shree Ganesh Construction v. State of Orissa and others, 2016(II) OLR 237; M/s. D.K. Engineering v. State, 2016(II) ILR-CUT-515; Bhupendra Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha and others, 2016(ILR-CUT- 760; Homogenomics Private Ltd. V. State of Odisha, AIR 2016 Orissa 178; Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others, (2013) 10 SCC 95; Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramesh Chand, AIR 2016 SC 2570; State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh and others, (2016) 1 SCC 724; Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation, AIR 2001 SC 3887; Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601; M/s. Star Enterprises and others v. City and Industrial Development Corporatin of Maharashtra Ltd. and others, (1990) 3 SCC 280; Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Devkishan Computed P. Ltd. and an unreported judgment passed in W.P.(C) NO.2529 of 2016 (Manash Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha and others) disposed of on 19.07.2016.

23. A further argument was advanced before this Court by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that, when the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19976 of 2016 for delay in approving the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer, World Bank Projects, Odisha on the basis of the consideration made by the tender committee, and when such matter was pending, the cancellation thereof and consequential issuance of fresh tender on 30.11.2016 cannot sustain. The plea advanced was that the action of the authority is hit by the principle of lis pendence and, as such, is liable to be quashed. To substantiate his claim, reliance has been placed on Homogenomics Private Ltd. (supra). In the instant case, since there is no approval of the recommendation made by the Chief Engineer, World Bank Projects, Odisha, on the basis of assessment of the tender committee, no right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner. Even if the matter was pending before this Court for consideration, the tender committee could reconsider the matter on the basis of the direction given by the competent authority, namely, the approving authority. Thereby, the ratio decided in Homogenomics Private Ltd. (supra) is also not applicable to the present case.