SANTOSH KUMAR SADANGI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition, seeks for a direction to set aside the decision of the authorities under Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation) in rejecting his technical bid for appointment of "Level-11 Transport Contractor for Transportation of Food Grains from Rice Receiving Centre-cum-Departmental Storage Centres to Retail Centres" (for short, 'the Level-11 Transport Contractor') as well as for a direction to open and consider his price bid for the said tender.

(2.) The averments in the writ petition reveal that pursuant to a Tender Call Notice dated 09.03.2017 for appointment of Level-II Transport Contractor, the petitioner submitted his bid along with relevant documents in respect of Berhampur Municipal Corporation as well as Sorada and Dharakot Blocks. As per the schedule, the technical bid was opened on 23.03.2017 in present of all the bidders and their representatives. The technical bid of the petitioner in respect of all the three units were rejected on the ground that there was no valid fitness certificate of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. OR 10 G 5541 and instead a copy of the registration volume of the said vehicle, obtained from R.T.O., Koraput, was produced, which was not acceptable. The same was verbally intimated to the petitioner. The representations of the petitioner in this regard were also not considered. As per the tender condition, the petitioner had documents of two vehicles owned by him, out of which fitness certificate in respect of vehicle No. OR 10 C 7657, produced by the petitioner, was valid up to 27.03.2017. Since the original fitness certificate of vehicle No. OR 10 G 5541 was misplaced at the relevant time, the petitioner had submitted a copy of the registration volume granted by the RTO, Koraput, which disclosed that the fitness of the said vehicle was valid till 21.04.2017. The petitioner however obtained fitness certificate of the said vehicle in prescribed form subsequently and submitted it before the authorities of the Corporation, which was not accepted as by that time the technical bid of the petitioner had already been rejected. Thus, it is contended in the writ petition that action of the opposite parties in rejecting the bid of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. Hence, the writ petitioner seeks the aforesaid relief.

(3.) The Corporation filed its counter affidavit refuting contentions made in the writ petition. It is contended, inter alia, that although the petitioner had submitted the fitness certificate in respect of vehicle No. OR 10 C 7657, which was valid up to 27.02017, he had not submitted the fitness certificate in prescribed form in respect of vehicle No. OR 10 G 5541. On the other hand, he had submitted a copy of the registration volume of the vehicle issued by the RTO, Koraput. Since the fitness certificate in prescribed was not produced along with tender papers and a copy of the registration volume of the said vehicle issued by the RTO, Koraput was enclosed to his technical bid, the same was not accepted.