LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-28

PRADEEP KUMAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On August 27, 2008
PRADEEP KUMAR SAHOO Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, challenging the action of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in rejecting his tender paper for construction of super passage across Salandi Left Main Canal at RD. 8910M of I.A.B.P. under A.I.B.P. for the year 2008-09, has filed this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows : The Executive Engineer, Salandi Canal Division, Bhadrak on behalf of the Governor of Orissa published a Tender Call Notice inviting applications from the eligible class of contractors registered with the State Government for giving their item rate bids for construction of 14 (fourteen) items of works indicated in the said tender. The sale and receipt of the bid documents started from 1-10-2008 and closed on 16-10-2008 at 3.00 p.m. The petitioner being an "A" Class registered contractor, purchased the tender paper for the item of works against Sl. No. 11 in the Tender Call Notice i.e. the work for construction of super passage across Salandi Left Main Canal at RD.8910M of I.A.B.P. under A.I.B.P. for the year 2008-09 and submitted the tender paper as per the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice. As per the said Tender Call Notice, the tenderer is required to deposit the additional performance security to the extent of differential cost of 90% of the admitted cost.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the petitioner submitted his tender paper at a price less than 10.46 of the estimated cost and deposited Rs. 30,000/-towards the differential price in shape of National Savings Certificate. He also deposited Rs. 50,000/- as EMD in the shape of fixed deposit and deposited further amount of Rs. 10,400/- on 15-10-2008. The petitioner's tender value for the aforesaid work was Rs. 44,58,945.16 whereas opposite party No. 3 offered the tender at Rs. 44,90,747.65. It is further submitted by the petitioner that though he deposited Rs. 30,000/- towards additional performance security in the shape of National Savings Certificate, on calculation; he found that the exact amount comes to Rs. 33,091.86. Therefore, by way of abundant caution the petitioner deposited further sum of Rs. 10,400/- in shape of Bank Draft in the name of Executive Engineer, Salandi Canal Division towards the additional performance security on 11-11-2008. Thus, the total amount paid by the petitioner comes to Rs. 40,400/-. The petitioner being the lowest tenderer was entitled to be considered and at least the authority should intimate him the reason of rejection. As the petitioner did not receive any intimation from the Executive Engineer, he sent the said draft by registered post which was received in the office of the Executive Engineer. But the authority without giving any information to the petitioner and taking note that he is the lowest tenderer, in a surreptitious manner allotted the works to opposite party No. 3. Though the petitioner complied with all the conditions and there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner as a lowest tenderer for the said work, his tender was rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deficiency of depositing the amount is curable one and the petitioner being the lowest tenderer, he cured the deficiency within the stipulated time by making a bank draft of Rs. 10,400/- within 16-10-2008, i.e. the last date fixed to file the tender. In such a situation, instead of allotting the works in favour of opposite party No. 3, the same should have been allotted to him. Since the petitioner's tender has been rejected by the Executive Engineer, he has approached this Court for quashing the allotment of works in favour of opposite party No. 3 and reconsider the tender submitted by the petitioner.