SANKARSHAN SETHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ quashing the acceptance of the tender of opposite party No. 4 and for a direction to the opposite parties to finalise the tender in respect of construction of 1000 MT Godown at Jeypore after adhering to guidelines under Annexure -1.

(2.) Facts of the case are that opposite party No. 3, a Government Undertaking, floated a tender call notice inviting item rate tenders from the registered contractors of State PWD/Irrigation/RW/CPWD/Railway having valid license from competent authority for construction of Godown 1000 MT and 500 MT Godowns at different places mentioned in the tender call notice including Jeypore. Pursuant to the said tender call notice, four contractors including the Petitioner submitted their tenders for construction of 1000 MT Godown at Jeypore. The case of the Petitioner is that by way of providing certain concession to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe contractors for execution of P.W.D. works, the State Government in Works Department Resolution No. 27748 dated 11.10.1977, copy of which is annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition, inter alia, provided that if tenders of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe contractors is within 10% of the rate quoted by the lowest tenderer for any work, the work may be considered for award to him/them at the lowest tendered rate in relaxation of Rule 18 of the O.G.F.R. Volume I and para 3.5.14 of the O.P.W.D. Code. In the tender notice it was also provided that Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe tenderers will be considered to be preferred over lowest tenders, if such tendered price are within 10% of the rate quoted by the lowest tenderer. The work may be considered for award to him/them at the lowest tendered rate, subject to submission of attested copy of caste certificate. The grievance of the Petitioner is that even though by virtue of the aforesaid Government resolution he was the Lowest -1 tenderer, the opposite party No. 3 has recommended the case of opposite party No. 4 ignoring his rightful claim on the ground that he has no past experience. It is averred by the Petitioner that he has ample work experience under various departments of Government and other Governmental agencies. In the aforesaid circumstances, he has filed this writ petition for the reliefs as mentioned earlier.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 wherein it has been stated that four contractors had Submitted tenders for the work in question. The details of the rates quoted by the four tenderers were as follows: