M/S Maruti Construction, Sambalpur vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

M/s. Maruti Construction (Petitioner) filed a Writ Petition before the Orissa High Court challenging the tender process for the installation of a CCTV Surveillance system in Belpahar Municipality Area for the year 2022-23. The Petitioner contended that Opposite Party No. 5 was wrongly qualified and allowed to participate in the lottery as the first lowest bidder, despite not uploading an up-to-date GST clearance certificate, which was mandatory as per clauses 22 and 112 of the DTCN. The Petitioner also argued that their bid, which quoted an equal rate and complied with all tender conditions, should have been accepted. The Petitioner had submitted a representation to Opposite Party No. 5 highlighting these grievances.

Held

The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the Writ Petition. The Court directed Opposite Party No. 5 to consider the representation filed by the Petitioner (Annexure-3) and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the legality of the tender process, the qualification of Opposite Party No. 5, or the acceptance of the Petitioner's bid. The operative direction was to consider the Petitioner's representation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the qualification of Opposite Party No. 5 and their participation in the lottery for the tender was illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable, violating mandatory tender conditions regarding the upload of an up-to-date GST clearance certificate as per clauses 22 and 112 of the DTCN? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of tender conditions). 2. Whether the bid of the Petitioner, which quoted an equal rate to Opposite Party No. 5 and complied with all tender criteria, should have been accepted? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of tender conditions and comparative evaluation of bids). 3. Whether the decision-making process adopted by the tender authority in finalizing the tender in favour of Opposite Party No. 5 was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, intended to favour Opposite Party No. 5? (Question of law and fact, turning on procedural fairness and constitutional principles). Petitioner's arguments: The Petitioner argued that Opposite Party No. 5's bid should not have been qualified due to the lack of a mandatory GST clearance certificate. They also contended that their own bid met all criteria and should have been considered favourably, especially since they quoted an equal rate. The entire process was alleged to be arbitrary and favouring Opposite Party No. 5, violating Article 14. Revenue/State's arguments: Learned Counsel for the State had no objection to the Petitioner's request for their representation to be considered.