(1.) This petition challenges the order dated 19.7.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Sambalpur in FAO No.3/4 of 2016. By the said order, learned appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 29.1.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in I.A No.42 of 2015, whereby and whereunder learned trial court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff.
(2.) The petitioner as plaintiff instituted C.S. No.399 of 2015 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur for a declaration that the cancellation of award of work to the plaintiff vide letter of acceptance dated 26.08.2014 by the defendant no.2 vide letter dated 16.10.2015 is declared illegal and void impleading the opposite parties as defendants. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to restrain the opposite parties-defendants from giving cumulative effect to the order of cancellation dated 16.10.2015 issued by the defendant no.2 or to secure the interest of the petitioner qua the project of public importance.
(3.) The case of the petitioner is that opposite parties floated an e-tender notice on 24.1.2014 for "Construction of Concrete Pavement in the Coal Transportation Roads of IB Coalfields' of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited". The estimated cost of the tender work as per the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was Rs.265,06,95,669,95 p. The last date for submission of the bid was 24.3.2014. The petitioner submitted its bid and deposited earnest money of Rs.58 lakhs in the form of an irrevocable bank guarantee. The tender was an item rate tender. The petitioner submitted its offer at Rs.266,23,32,349.79 p. which was 0.44% the estimated cost of Rs.265,06,95,669,95 p. The petitioner was L-1. The opposite parties vide letter dated 26.8.2014 issued a letter of acceptance of tender calling upon the petitioner to fulfil the conditions stated in the NIT with a condition that in the event the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions, necessary action in accordance with the tender condition shall be taken. The petitioner was asked to furnish performance security deposit of Rs.13,64,07,256/- being 5% of the value of the work. The opposite parties also directed the petitioner to furnish an additional performance security of Rs.41,37,62,085.87 p. on the ground that the rate quoted by it in respect of some of the items are abnormally low. It is further stated that the decision of the opposite parties to furnish additional performance security is arbitrary, irrational and contrary to clauses 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 of the general items and conditions of the NIT.