APARNA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, seeks to quash the decision taken by the opposite parties no.2, 3 and 5 vide Annexure-2 dtd. 11/4/2023 and Annexure-4 series dtd. 13/4/2023 and 11/4/2023 in allowing the technical bid of opposite party no.4 and declaring him as the successful bidder in respect of appointment of handling and transport contractor (transport agent) under Mid-Day Meal programme of Balasore district for the year 2023-24, in pursuance of the tender call notice dtd. 15/3/2023.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that opposite party no.2-Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore-cum-Chairman (MDM), Balasore vide Annexure-1 invited a tender call notice on 15/3/2023 for appointment of transport agent under Mid-Day Meal programme in respect of Balasore district for the year 2023-24 from the eligible contractors. As per the said tender call notice, the tender was to be submitted through registered post and the last date for submission of tender was 10/4/2023 at 4.00 PM. The date and time of opening of tender papers was 11/4/2023 at 11.00 AM. Clause-2 of the tender call notice contained the general instructions and guidelines for the tenderer. Under Clause-2.3 thereof, it was stipulated that 'in case the cost of tender paper, EMD and any other document as per Annexure-II is not enclosed with the technical bid, the tender paper shall be rejected'.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the selection of opposite party no.4 as successful bidder is in gross violation of the conditions stipulated in the tender call notice. Thereby, his selection is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. Apart from the same, there was gross defect in the decision making process of selecting opposite party no.4 as successful bidder. Nevertheless, the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to disqualification incurred by opposite party no.4 was not considered. Therefore, the decision making process adopted by the opposite parties cannot be sustained in the eye of law and consequentially, the same should be quashed.