Full Judgment
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.25297 of 2012 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------------Sk. Tajmuddin ………… Petitioner ………… Opp. Parties -VersusOdisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd. and others For Petitioner : M/s. Sangram Nayak, K.B.Kar & D.K.Pattanaik For Opp. Parties 1 to 3: M/s. Santosh Kumar Pattnaik, U.C.Mahanty, P.K.Pattanaik, D.Pattanaik, S.P.Das & S.P.Satpathy For Opp. Party No.4 Mr. Benudhar Patra : PRESENT: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI C.NAGAPPAN & THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY. Date of Hearing:
21. 06.2013 Date of Order:24.07.2013 ________________________________________________________________________ I.Mahanty, J.The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner- Sk. Tajmuddin being aggrieved upon the action of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 declaring him as an unsuccessful bidder in respect of Cashew 2 Plantation Lot No.07/13 which relates to Kunjari DPF ‘B’ under Tangi Sub-Division of Bhubaneswar (C) Division pursuant to the tender held on 31.10.2012 under Annexure-2 to the writ application and declaring opposite party no.4-Nilamani Pradhan as successful bidder.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the petitioner has submitted his tender for Rs.7,55,000/- and though he claims to have been the highest bidder, the E.M.D. of the petitioner was refunded under cover of a letter dated 20th November, 2012.
3. The O.F.D.C. (opposite parties 1, 2 and
3) filed their counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that since the bids pursuant to the aforesaid tender call notice was below the minimum acceptable price for the said Lot, the tender was cancelled for the said Lot and E.M.D. of the tenderer was duly returned. Thereafter Lot No.07/13 was once again put to auction by a subsequent tender notice dated 27.12.2012 where an offer of Rs.13,84,653/- was received. The result of the second tender was duly published on 8.1.2013 but before the interim order dated 3.1.2013 was received by the opposite party, for which reason, though opposite party no.4 has been declared as the successful bidder in the 2 nd tender yet, opposite party no.4 has No.been permitted to sign the agreement with the opposite party no.1 till date.
4. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 7.5.2013 (Order No.8) Sri S.K.Pattnaik, learned counsel for O.F.D.C. produced the relevant documents in a sealed cover. On perusal of the same, it is clear 3 therefrom that the present petitioner had also participated in the second tender, though No.for the present disputed Lot. The second tender was also never the subject matter of challenge in this writ application and suppressing the fact that the second tender has been called and that the petitioner had participated therein, the present writ petition was presented. We are of the considered view that we need No.enter into any further adjudication since the second tender, held on 27.12.2012, is No.the subject matter of challenge and the petitioner himself having participated in the second tender (though for other Lots), is guilty on suppression of material facts.
5. Therefore, we find no justification whatsoever to entertain the present writ application and accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed. The interim order dated 03.01.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.21680 of 2012 stands vacated and the opposite parties 1, 2 and 3 are free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. …………………… I.Mahanty, J.C.Nagappan, C.J.I agree. …………………… Chief Justice ORISSA HIGH COURT; CUTTACK 24 h July, 2013/ RKS. 4