SK. AFTAB AHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner claiming to be the lowest tenderer has filed this application challenging the decision taken by Opp. Party No. 2 rejecting his offer qualifying the tender bid of Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure 5 for the work "improvement to road from Paikamala to Nrusinghnath Road under ACA for 2014 -15, vide Bid identification on Online -03 -0F -2014 -15". The summary of essence of fact in delineated herein below:

(2.) MR . P.C. Nayak, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, assails the bid submitted by Opp. Party No. 3 stating that in the list of machineries the mention of Truck (TATA Tipper) bearing Registration No. OR -15E -2582 in Clause -2.1.9 of which claimed to be the owner, actually stood recorded in the name of Mr. Agarwal Grafite Industries. Opp. Party No. 4 never signed on the lease agreement in favour of Opp. Party No. 3 & rather the said truck was in broken down & damaged condition since long & his scrap was sold to scrap dealer & the said vehicle was non -existence. It is further urged that the rate quoted by Opp. Party No. 3 as 4.23% was less than the estimated amount whereas rate quoted by the Petitioner as 9.9% was less than the estimated amount. The Petitioner being the lowest bidder & there was a difference of figure of around Rs. 5.0 lakhs, Opp. Party No. 2 had shown favour to Opp. Party No. 3 by awarding the contract in his favour.

(3.) CONSIDERING the above mentioned facts & circumstances & after going through the records & upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the tender call notice for the work improvement to road from Paikamala to Nrusinghnath Road under ACA for 2014 -15, vide Bid identification on -Online -03 -0F -2014 -15 had been floated by Opp. Party No. 2 inviting tenders vide Annexure -1, pursuant to which three intending bidders had submitted their bids as per the conditions stipulated in DTCN which were duly considered & scrutinized by the competent authority. It appears that the Petitioner's tender could not be accepted due to non -compliance with Clauses 2.1.8, 2.1.4 & 2.1.9 of the DTCN which fact is not controverted. Rather the Petitioner has candidly admitted the said fact in para 5 of the Writ Petition. In view of such candid admission, it is made clear that the Petitioner has submitted tender papers which were incomplete. Therefore, due to non -compliance with the conditions stipulated in DTCN, Opp. Party No. 2 was justified in rejecting his tender & in awarding the same in favour of Opp. Party No. 3, who otherwise satisfied the requirements stipulated in DTCN.