Bhagyadhar Dash vs. State Of Odisha

Held

The Court held that the objections raised by the petitioner did not hold good. Regarding the first issue, the Court accepted the State's submission that all bids, including those of the other bidders, were inclusive of GST, refuting the petitioner's claim to the contrary. Concerning the second issue, the Court found the State's justification for the workability of the bids to be valid. The State had conducted a detailed study and determined that bids up to 15% below the estimated cost were workable. Since the lowest bidders had quoted 14.99% below the estimated cost, their bids were considered workable. The Court also noted that the contract had already been awarded to the successful bidder after a lottery was conducted among the lowest bidders. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere in the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Bhagyadhar Dash, participated in a tender called by the State of Odisha for a certain work. The petitioner's bid was 29% above the estimated cost. The petitioner contended that Clause 69(a) of the tender conditions required price bids to be inclusive of GST, and that while the petitioner had included GST, other bidders had not. The petitioner also argued that the bids of other bidders were abnormally low and unworkable, and thus should be rejected. The State's counsel stated that 14 bids were received. Twelve bidders quoted 14.99% less than the estimated cost, one bidder quoted 6.78% less, and the petitioner quoted 29% above. The State clarified that all bids were inclusive of GST and that the estimated price was calculated after a detailed study, with a workable price considered to be up to 15% less than the estimated cost. A lottery was conducted among the 12 lowest bidders, and the contract was awarded to M/s. Hemant Kumar Agrawal & Company.

Key Issues

1. Whether the price bids submitted by the bidders, other than the petitioner, were inclusive of Goods and Services Tax (GST) as required by Clause 69(a) of the Tender Conditions, and if not, whether their bids should be rejected. 2. Whether the price bids submitted by the other bidders were workable, and if not, whether they should have been rejected. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the other bidders failed to include GST in their price bids, contrary to Clause 69(a) of the tender conditions. The petitioner also contended that the bids of the other bidders were abnormally low and unworkable, necessitating their rejection. Revenue's Arguments: The State argued that all price bids, including those of the other bidders, were inclusive of GST. The State further submitted that a detailed study had determined that a workable price could be up to 15% less than the estimated cost, and since the lowest bidders quoted 14.99% less, their bids were within the workable range.