SCION COMPUTERS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid two writ applications involve same fact and law and, therefore, both the writ applications were heard together.

(2.) The petitioners in both the writ applications have challenged the tender call notice in Annexure-1 to W.P. (C) No. 10634 of 2003 on the ground that without allowing them to complete the work entrusted to them pursuant to an earlier tender, the balance work could not be put to fresh tender. The case of the petitioners in both the' writ applications is that in an open advertisement issued by the Director, Land Records and Surveys, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack tenders were invited for the work "Data Entry for Computerisation cf Land Records" for all the Tahasils of the State and the petitioners had submitted their tenders. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 10463 of 2003 was awarded the work for two districts i.e. Balasore and Jajpur and entered into an agreement so far as Balasore district is concerned, on 18-9-1998. So far as Jajpur district is concerned, execution of the agreement was delayed and the same was finalized and signed on 26th October, 1999. So far as petitioner in W P. (C) No. 10634 of 2003 is concerned, it was awarded the work for the district of Ganjam and an agreement was executed on 16-6-1998. The further case of the petitioners is that before start of the work of Data Entry for a district they were required to provide necessary infrastructure like room, hardware, furniture and sufficient space so that the computers, printers and other equipments could be installed along with system software. The petitioners were also required to sign a software supports/maintenance contract with a provider of the data entry software. The work was to be undertaken Tahasilwise and the every Tahasil was to be completed within 90 days from the date of issue of the work order for that particular Tahasil. The progress of work was also to be verified from time to time and after completion of the Data Entry, the petitioners were to generate print out to be submitted to the validation team for the purpose of comparison and validation. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10463 of 2003 is that in the district of Balasore as well as in the district of Jajpur the petitioner had completed the Data Entry work in respect of all the Tahasils except one for each district According to the petitioner, the work In the said Tahasils could not be done as no work order was Issued in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, in W.P. (C) No. 10634 of 2003 it is alleged by the petitioner that it was not issued with the work orders In respect of five Tahasils In the district as a result of which it could not complete the work though it had executed the work inxespect of other Tahasils of the district.

(3.) The grievance of both the petitioners before this Court is that even though they have been selected and their tenders have been accepted for the aforesaid work for all the Tahasils in respect of the districts, work order was not issued in respect of certain Tahasils but the same have been included in the advertisement issued by the Director, Land Records and Surveys calling for fresh tenders.