BABA LINGARAJ ENTERPRISES PVT LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. ODISHA SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Managing Director of Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd., a Government of Odisha Undertaking issued tender call notice no. 509 dated 22.01.2016 published in local daily newspaper inviting tenders in sealed cover for Contract Operated Stock at/in and around Tangi (Cuttack) cum-Handling Contractor for transportation, handling, storage and de coiling, straightening, cutting, bending and bundling of Tata Tiscon Coils/Rebar manually/mechanically, and a corrigendum was also issued to the said tender call notice. The date and time of sale of tender documents was fixed to 23.01.2016 (11.00 a.m.), the last date of submission of tender documents was fixed to 15.02.2016 up to 2.00 p.m. and the date and time of opening of the said tender was fixed to 15.02.2016 at 2.30 p.m. Pursuant to such tender notice, petitioner no.1- M/s.Baba Lingaraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. through petitioner no.2, its Managing Director submitted its tender papers along with others. The tender evaluation committee evaluated the technical bids on 15.02.2016 at 3.30 p.m. and prepared a statement in respect of compliance of terms and conditions on 03.03.2016. The minutes of the meeting held on 03.03.2016 were forwarded to the Managing Director of opposite party no.1-Corporation for his approval with a note concerning non-compliance of certain terms of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) by opposite party no.2-M/s. Kandoi Transport Ltd., Cuttack, as detailed at serial no.18 of the said minutes. The Managing Director, instead of passing any order, directed to call all the bidders on 10.03.2016 at 12.30 p.m. for opening of financial bid. Pursuant to the same, on 10.03.2016 a meeting was held and opposite party no.2 was selected for operation of the contract by issuing a letter of intent (LOI) on 11.03.2016. The petitioner no.2 applied for copies of the documents relating to tender process under Rights to Information Act on 17.03.2016, which were granted by the opposite party no.1 on 05.04.2016. Consequently, the present writ petition was filed on 08.04.2016 challenging the letter of intent issued in favour of opposite party no.2 dated 11.03.2016.

(2.) Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged before this Court that Annexure-8, the letter of intent (LOI) dated 11.03.2016 for Contract Operated Stockyard at Tangi, has been issued in favour of opposite party no.2 without adhering to the provisions of the tender conditions, as opposite party no.2, having no experience certificate for two consecutive years during the preceding five years in operating identical activities for handling of minimum 50000 MT of iron and steel material per annum, was not entitled to get the same. He specifically contended by referring to the office note of opposite party no.1-Corporation, that the Managing Director has not considered the report of the technical committee dated 03.03.2016 either by approving or disapproving the same, and without assigning any reason straight away passed an order to call them (bidders) on 10.03.2016 at 12.30 p.m. for opening of financial bid. On 10.03.2016, an intimation was issued to petitioner no.1, by referring to a telephonic intimation dated 09.03.2016, to participate in the price bid opening of the tender on the very same day at 12.30 p.m.. As a matter of fact, no such telephonic intimation had been received on 09.03.2016, but the letter dated 10.03.2016 had been received by the petitioner on 10.03.2016 at 1.38 p.m. from the official e-mail, and by the time it was received the price bid had already been opened and opposite party no.2 had been selected. Therefore, the action of the authority being arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the conditions stipulated in the tender documents, the letter of intent dated 11.03.2016 issued in favour of opposite party no.2 is liable to be quashed.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Milan Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 tried to justify the order in annexure-8 dated 11.03.2016 with regard to issuance of letter of intent in favour of the opposite party no.2, and stated that no illegality or irregularity has been committed in making such selection so as to warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.