M/S. SHANTI CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-company, which was one of the bidders for grant of Khaira Mahanadi Sand Quarry under Tangi-Choudwar Tahasil on long term lease of five years, has filed this writ petition seeking direction to opposite party no.2 to issue Form-F in its favour in accordance with the requirements of Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 ("OMMC Rules, 2016" for short) by cancelling the Form-F issued in favour of opposite party no.3.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the Tahasildar, Tangi-Choudwar-opposite party no.2 issued advertisement no. 4828/2022 dtd. 11/7/2022 under Annexure-1 inviting bids for grant of Khaira Mahanadi Sand Quarry in Mouza-Khaira under TangiChoudwar Tahasil appertaining to Plot No. 1145 (P), Khata No. 540 (AAA) measuring an area of Ac.12.00 on long term lease of five years. As per the said notice, the interested bidders were required to submit their bids by filling up the Form-M, as provided under the OMMC Rules, 2016, and send it by registered post/speed post or may submit the same in the drop box by 5:00 pm of 18/7/2022. The petitioner-company, in pursuance of the auction notice under Annexure-1, participated in the auction proceeding through its authorised representative-Banabihari Kanungo by submitting Form-M before opposite party no.2 on 18/7/2022. After scrutiny of the documents and Form-M submitted by the applicants, opposite party no.2 intimated the petitioner that it had quoted highest amount, i.e. Rs.2127.27, but its bid was rejected due to "non submission of required documents". Therefore, opposite party no.3, who had quoted Rs.1250.00, was selected as he had complied with all the requirements pursuant to the advertisement in question.

(3.) Mr. Yasobant Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing along with Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the petitioner is a company, it had submitted the balance sheet of the previous year, instead of producing the previous year's income tax return and, as such, the bid of the petitioner should not have been rejected on the ground of non-submission of income tax return of the previous year. In such view of the matter, rejection of the bid of the petitioner due to non-furnishing of the documents cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the order rejecting the bid of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. The petitioner having quoted highest price of Rs.2127.27, its bid should have been knocked down in its favour in the interest of revenue of the State. It is further contended that in a tender matter augmentation of revenue of the State being the prime consideration, if the petitioner had quoted highest price of Rs.2127.27, in that case the bid should have been settled in its favour, instead of going for opposite party no.3. The technicality of non-furnishing of previous year's income tax return should not have stood in the way of augmentation of revenue of the State. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Ram And Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and Ors, AIR 1985 SC 1147 : 1985 (Suppl-1) SCR 541 and of this Court in the case of Dusmant Mallick v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No. 12879 of 2020) and batch decided on 26/8/2020.