MAA JAGATJANANI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER JEYPORE MUNICIPALITY
LAWS(ORI)-2020-12-10
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on December 10,2020

Maa Jagatjanani Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Appellant
VERSUS
Executive Officer Jeypore Municipality Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BISWANATH RATH,J. - (1.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners, a private firm, seeking interference of this Court in the tender notice dated 06.01.2020 at Annexure-4 further also praying for issuing writ of mandamus to the opposite party to allow the petitioners to execute the work under Annexure-2 series and Annexure-3 series.
(2.) Short background involving the case is that opposite party floated tender notice No.2912 dated 08.08.2018 inviting percentage rate bids on online mode for execution of certain works as specified in the table therein. It is contended that in the tender notice dated 08.08.2018, bids from eligible contractors were invited for execution of 22 numbers of works involving Jeypore Municipality, reference of which is made through Annexure-1. Further plea goes to disclose that the petitioner no.1 participated in the tender and its bid found to be competitive and responsive, petitioner no.1 was awarded with the work on deposit of initial security in respect of all works specified in the table. An agreement for execution of work in question was signed involving 22 numbers of works. The petitioner no.1, as required, also deposited the E.M.D. as well as initial security amount against each work before execution of the work. It is here alleged that the opposite party has taken back the work order in respect of Item Nos.1, 3, 16 and 19 involving improvement of road Chhiliguda Jayanagar, improvement of road from N.H.26 to N.H.26 Dangaguda, improvement of road from Ganganagar to Power Junction on the ground that the estimated cost in respect of these three works was since more than fifteen lakhs for which approval of the Collector, Koraput was necessary. Withdrawing the work order, as it appears, the petitioner no.1 was advised to wait till the approval of the higher authority is obtained. It is further contended that so far as work in respect of Item Nos. 2, 8, 11, 12 and 13 involving improvement of road at Mahavir Lane at Jaynagar, improvement of road from main road to Chandanbado street via Nilasaila, improvement of road at Palio Sahi, improvement of road at Dhoba Sahi and lastly improvement of road at Praharajbabu residence at Jayanagar for which work orders though have been issued but these works could not be executed due to site clearance and for not handing over of the site by the opposite party. It is further contended that petitioner no.1 has deposited E.M.D. as well as initial security deposit which is equal to 1 % of the estimated cost of the tender with the opposite party, but no work order is issued for want of approval of the higher authority in respect of Item Nos. 1, 3, 16 and 19 as on the date of filing of the writ petition. It is stated that out of 22 numbers of works, petitioners claimed to have completed all other works except work under Item Nos.1, 3, 16 and 19. It is claimed that while the petitioner no.1 was continuing in his efforts, he came to notice that the opposite party has already cancelled the tender in respect of above items but without any notice. Petitioner alleged that it has also come to notice that opposite party in the meanwhile even invited fresh tender in respect of work including some other works involving tender call notice entering into a tender call notice dated 06.01.2020. Challenging the fresh tender call notice vide Annexure-4, Sri P.Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no reason attributed to the petitioner in cancellation of the earlier tender notice in respect of rest of the works. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus claimed that such cancellation is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is in the above premises, Sri Behera, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the opposite party is going to fresh tender without having any valid reason depriving the petitioners from completing the work involved therein becomes bad. It is also alleged that the fresh tender notice has been issued in haste and there is no intimation of estimated cost in the list of work and as such tender notice, impugned herein, otherwise also becomes contrary to codal provision of the Government. It is also urged that canceling the previous tender without providing opportunity to the petitioner becomes bad.
(3.) Taking this Court to the short note of submission, on reiteration of his stand already taken hereinabove, learned counsel for the petitioners again on the same premises prayed this Court for exercise the power of judicial review to prevent the arbitrary action of the opposite party in cancelling the work order as well as issuing fresh tender notice and thereby granting appropriate relief to the petitioner. Relying on a decision in the case of Nobel Resources Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa and Anr. , 2007 AIR(SC) 119, learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to take support of the judgment involved hereinabove to the case of the petitioners.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.