CHINTAMANI PATRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to tender call notice issued by opposite party no.4-Tahasildar, Banki on 29.02.2016 inviting tenders for long term lease of sairat source, namely, Kotadwar Sand Ghat, the bidders were to submit their bid documents along with necessary solvency certificate or bank guarantee valid for 18 months to the tune of the bid amount and royalty payable for a period of one year added together. There were other conditions also to be fulfilled but this is the one which is of concern in the present case. The bids were to be submitted in Form-'J' along with other documents, between 21.03.2016 and 28.03.2016, which were to be opened on 29.03.2016. Six bidders had participated, in which the bid of opposite party no.6 was the highest at Rs.81,81,839.00 and that of the petitioner was the second highest at Rs.58,19,999.00. The solvency certificate was to be provided by the respective bidders for the bid amount, plus the royalty amount for one year, which in the case of opposite party no.6 came to Rs.1,23,61,830.00 and that of the petitioner came to Rs.99,99,999.00.

(2.) The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioner submitted the solvency certificate for an amount of Rs.1.00 crore along with the bid documents, which was valid for a period of 18 months. On the contrary, the solvency certificate furnished by opposite party no.6 along with the bid documents was for an amount of Rs.1,06,74,400.00 instead of the requisite amount of Rs.1,23,61,830.00. The shortfall amount is said to have been deposited by the opposite party no.6 in the bank on 28.03.2016, by way of term deposit of Rs.17.00 lakh, for which a certificate was issued by the bank on 29.03.2016 and the same was submitted by the opposite party no.6 on the date of the opening of the financial bid, i.e. 29.03.2016.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because there was non-compliance of furnishing of the necessary solvency certificate of the entire amount by opposite party no.6 along with the bid documents, the bid of opposite party no.6 could not have been accepted, and that of the petitioner ought to have been accepted as he was the second highest bidder. Objection, in this regard, was raised before the Tahasildar at the time of opening of the bid, which was rejected by the Tahasildar vide order dated 29.02016. The said order of the Tahasildar is also challenged in this writ petition.