SARAT KUMAR SAMAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. B.R. Sarangi,J. The Petitioner, who is a Special Class Contractor registered under the P.W.D. Contractors Registration Rules, 1967, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the letter dtd. 13/6/2022 under Annexure-4, whereby a communication has been made by opposite party no.4 to opposite party no.5 that the bid of the petitioner submitted for the work "Improvement to Road and C.D. works under PMGSY" for the Package No.OR-02-488/PMGSY-III (B-III) in the district of Balasore has been rejected by opposite party no.3, as per recommendation made in Bid Evaluation Committee Meeting held on 10/6/2022, and direction has been issued to go for rebidding of the said package, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to accept the petitioner's bid for the aforesaid work in terms of recommendation of opposite party no.5, vide letter dtd. 3/6/2022 under Annexure-3, within a stipulated period.

(2.) The epitome of facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that opposite party no.4-Chief Engineer, PMGSY in the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, invited public tender notice no.1056 dtd. 11/4/2022 for various packages of works, including the package no.OR-02-488-PMGSY- III(B-III), in the district of Balasore for the work "Improvement to Road and CD works under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana", in respect of which the petitioner, having requisite eligibility criteria, submitted his bid along with other bidders. The technical bids were opened on 25/5/2022 and the tender evaluation committee, out of four bidders, qualified the petitioner and one Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra-opposite party no.6. Thereafter, the price bids of technically qualified bidders were opened on 3/6/2022, whereafter the petitioner, having quoted 7.50% excess over the estimated value of the work, was declared as 1st lowest bidder. As the petitioner, for having complied with all criteria, was found L-1, opposite party no.5, vide letter dtd. 3/6/2022, recommended his name to opposite party no.4 for approval. Instead of according approval, opposite party no.4, vide letter dtd. 13/6/2022, intimated opposite party no.5 that the bid of the petitioner has been rejected by opposite party no.3-CEO, Orissa State Rural Road Agency (OSRRA), as per recommendation of Bid Evaluation Committee in the meeting held on 10/6/2022, and accordingly requested to go for immediate rebidding for the package no. OR-02- 488-PMGSY-III(B-III) observing all formalities. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the tender of the petitioner was found responsive both in technical and price evaluation and recommended for approval, the same should not have been rejected arbitrarily without any valid reason and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereby, it is contended that such action of the authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the bid submitted by the petitioner, having been qualified in the technical evaluation and declared as the first lowest bidder after opening of the price bid, and recommended for approval without any adverse remarks against him, the direction for rebidding of the very same package of work cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that in the same batch of tender even after tendering process is over, the authority has granted deviation of 4.69% over the estimated cost of the tender. Since the petitioner has quoted 7.50% excess over the estimated cost of the tender, the authorities should have approved the bid of the petitioner by giving equal and fair treatment to all the bidders. It is further contended that the present tender estimate was based on SOR 2014 and the petitioner quoted 7.50% excess basing on the market rate as there is abnormal increase in materials in addition to labour charges. If the authorities retendered the package no.OR-02-488-PMGSY-III(B-III), it would be estimated on the basis of SOR 2022 and the present cost of the work would be minimum 20% excess. Therefore, without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also without specifying violation of any tender clause rejecting his bid, issuance of direction for rebidding of the aforesaid work cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same should be quashed.