RANJIT CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF ODISHA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ranjit Construction, registered as a partnership firm, is a special class contractor having valid license, according to prescribed revised classification, and has obtained a certificate in Form "B" of Certificate of Registration under Rule-6 of the PWD Contractors Registration Rules, 1967. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Circle, Bhawanipatna-opposite party no.4 invited public tender on 09.09.2016 in respect of 66 packages for construction of road under Pradhan Mantri Gramya Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) . In respect of the work, vide Package No. OR-24-140, i.e., "LO28 Bharuamunda to Gambhariguda" the approximate estimate cost was fixed to Rs.240.21 lakhs and the period of completion was within 9 months. In respect of the said package, the petitioner participated, by submitting all required documents, along with 5 other bidders. On evaluation of the technical bid, its result was published on 26.12.2016, in which the petitioner, along with 3 other bidders, was found to be qualified. Thereafter, the price bid was opened, in which it was found that the petitioner and one Sanjay Kumar Agrawal had quoted equal rate. Therefore, a lottery was conducted in which the petitioner was declared successful. The tender inviting authority recommended the name of the petitioner, for approval of the tender, to the Chief Engineer, PMGSY. As the bid of the petitioner was not approved, no work order has been issued in favour of the petitioner, hence this application.

(2.) Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that in respect of the work in question in the tender process 6 bidders, including the petitioner, had participated and 4 bidders (including the petitioner) were qualified in the technical bid. When price bid was opened, the rate quoted by the petitioner and one Sanjay Kumar Agrawal was found to be equal, for which a lottery was conducted. In the lottery, as the petitioner was found successful, the tender inviting authority recommended its name for approval. But, so far as other packages are concerned, though the tender bids have been approved by the appropriate authority and work orders have been issued, the petitioner having stood in the same footing and being equal to them, is entitled to be treated fairly and reasonably and allowed to work by issuing work order in its favour by approving the recommendation made by the competent authority. Due to such unequal treatment, the petitioner has approached this Court ventilating its grievance. Even though the petitioner made a representation on 06.06.2017, the same was not replied to. Against such arbitrary and unreasonable action of the authority concerned, finding no other way out, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) Mr. P.K. Muduli, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties, contended that the bid evaluation committee apprehended lack of transparency and fair play in the bidding process and therefore decided to cancel the tender in respect of the package. Therefore, pursuant to letter dated 01.05.2017, the tender process has been rejected.