AFR SIDHESWAR PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the order under Annexure-2 dated 15.09.2020 rejecting his tender, as well as fresh notification dated 22.09.2020 in Annexure-5; and further seeks for a direction to opposite party no.3 to settle the lease of Paikaminigudi sand quarry no. 2 of 2020 in his favour, he being the highest bidder pursuant to notification under Annexure-1 dated 14.08.2020, by holding that the reason of rejection i.e., non-submission of original solvency certificate as illegal being not a requirement of law as well as the terms of the tender notification.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the Tahasildar, Nandahandi in the district of Nabarangpur floated a tender on 14.08.2020 inviting applications in prescribed form in respect of Paikaminigudi sand quarry under khata no. 329, plot no. 922 measuring 1.25 hec. The last date of submission of application was 15.09.2020. So far as Paikaminigudi sand quarry is concerned there were four applicants, including the petitioner, and as such, the petitioner quoted the highest rate of royalty i.e. @ Rs.54/- per cum. The scrutiny committee of the Tahasil office opened the tender at 3.30 pm on 15.09.2020 and the result was published on 22.09.2020 rejecting all the applications. In the order, the rate quoted by different applicants was disclosed, but the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground of non-submission of original solvency certificate. The petitioner, being aggrieved by such decision, submitted an application on 22.09.2020 to the Tahasildar-opp. party no.3 stating therein that submission of original solvency certificate was not the requirement of law. Neither the provisions of rules nor the terms of the advertisement require for submitting original solvency certificate. In the past years, the tender applications were considered valid on submission of xerox copies of solvency certificates. When a person applies for more than one source, he cannot submit his original certificate in all his applications. Further, solvency certificates are being issued by the Tahasil office and the tender applications are being considered by the Tahasildar in a committee. In case of doubt, they can verify the authenticity of the solvency certificates from their office. Therefore, there is no necessity of production of any original solvency certificate in the tender documents, when a tenderer applies for more than one source. Consequently, the petitioner requested for allotment of quarry in his favour being the highest bidder. But the Tahasildar having not considered the same, the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the Collector, Nabarangpur on 23.09.2020 challenging the decision of the Tahasildar rejecting his claim on the plea of non-submission of original solvency certificate which was not the requirement of law. The said appeal is still pending before the Collector. But during pendency of the appeal, since the Tahasildar proceeded in issuing a fresh auction notice in respect of very same quarry on 22.09.2020, the date the petitioner made representation for consideration, finding no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this application.

(3.) Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tahasildar showing undue haste has proceeded with the matter without considering the grievance made by the petitioner and, as such, when the petitioner's appeal is pending before the appropriate forum, the Tahasildar should not have issued a fresh notice on 22.09.2020 annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is further contended that the petitioner has quoted highest price for payment of royalty per cum, but the tender submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on a flimsy ground that due to non-submission of original solvency certificate/bank guarantee the bid of the petitioner has not been accepted in respect of Paikamuniguda sand quarry TMC No. 02/2020. It is further contended that there is no specific provision contained either in the rules or in government notification or even in the tender notice to produce the original solvency certificate or bank guarantee for consideration of the tender submitted by the petitioner. It is also contended that if the petitioner applies for more than one source, while submitting tender documents, it is not possible to produce original solvency certificate in all places. Therefore, the document submitted by the petitioner should have been taken in to consideration, as in the past the very same authority had accepted the photocopy of the solvency certificate submitted by the tenderers for various sources. It is also contended that the Tahasildar being the authority for issuance of solvency certificate, authenticity of the photocopy of solvency certificate can be verified from his office. But instead of doing so, the tender submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. Thereby, the Tahasildar has acted arbitrarily, unreasonably and contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the order of rejection passed in Annexure-2 dated 15.09.2020.