GYANANANDA MATIA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Block Development Officer-cum-(Member Convenor) Tender Committee, Panchayat Samiti, Kundra in the district of Koraput issued a tender call notice on 25.01.2016 published in local daily newspaper and also official website in respect of the work "Construction of Panchayat Samiti Building at Kundra" inviting bids from the contractors having 'B' and 'C' class certificates issued by the PWD and CPWD with approximate tender value of Rs.3,45,800/- under TFC scheme and the work was to be completed within a period of ten months. Pursuant to such tender call notice, the petitioner, along with others including opposite party no.6, submitted their tender papers. The petitioner, being a 'B' class contractor and possessing a valid licence, though quoted 14.99% less price, but had not submitted the affidavit as required under Annexure-III to Clauses-45 and 46 of the Detail Tender Call Notice (DTCN). Even though the petitioner was L-1, but opposite party no.6, who had quoted 9.01% less price and was L-2, was selected for award of the work. The petitioner, therefore, against non-award of the work in question in his favour, has approached this Court by means of this writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Nilakantha Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically urged before this Court that opposite party no.6, being an elected member of the Panchayat Samiti pursuant to the Grama Panchayat election held in the year 2012, his offer could not have been considered by the authority. Although he urged several other questions to declare opposite party no.6 not eligible, but he specifically confined his argument stating that opposite party no.6, being an elected sitting member of the Panchayat Samiti, could not have participated in the tender process and, as such, during pendency of the writ application no work order could have been issued by opposite party no.4 to allow opposite party no.6 to proceed with the work in question.

(3.) Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State opposite parties states that opposite party no.6, being a member of ST community, is entitled to get 10% price preference as per the Government in Works Department's office memorandum no.10224 dated 01.09.2015. Therefore, if the price preference is given to him, he can be taken into consideration for allotment of the work in question. Hence, in selecting opposite party no.6, no illegality has been committed. He further contended that the petitioner, having not submitted the affidavit, as required under Clauses-41, 42 and 45 of the DTCN, his application was defective one and, therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the authority.