TARUN MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an 'A' class contractor registered under PWD Contractors' Registration Rules, 1967, so also is opposite party no.4. The Superintending Engineer, Eastern Circle (R & B) , Balasore, on behalf of Governor of Odisha, invited public tender, vide Bid Identification No. SEEC(R & B) -06/2017-18 dated 23.11.2017, for several works including the one at serial no.4, i.e., "Construction of H.L. Bridge over Raigudi Nallah at 80/575 Km on Sergarh-Nilgiri- Kaptipada-Udala-Baripada-Midanapur Road (SH-19) for the year 2017-18" with estimated cost of Rs.3, 81, 89, 339.00 paise.

(2.) Mr. P.C. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the license of opposite party no.4, which was of 'A' class contractor, does not indicate that the license has been given to a scheduled caste person, he would not be entitled to the benefit of the circular dated 11.10.1977. The submission is that the provision of noting the caste in the license is only upto 'B' class contractor and, as such, since the license of 'A' class and above contractors do not have the provision of mentioning the caste, hence the intention of the Government was to give the benefit of the circular dated 11.10.1977 only to contractors upto 'B' class and not above.

(3.) Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate, as well as Sri R.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4 have submitted that the benefit of the circular dated 11.10.1977 is to be given to all classes of contractors, which is for the benefit of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe contractor, without any limitation with regard to category/class of the contractors.