Pramod Kumar Sahoo vs. State Of Odisha

Mr. Rath, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client had challenged a tender condition regarding definition of ‘family’, to bar family members from participating in it. Subsequently his client put in a bid, which stood rejected on requirement of a goods and services tax certificate. His client cannot obtain it under the law. It was done purposefully, to eliminate his client’s candidature on the employer choosing not to Order No. 05. disqualify his client on the family clause. He submits, it is continuing cause of action on prayer made challenging the family clause. There be interference.

Mr. Panda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, petitioner having had challenged the family clause in the tender, thereafter participated without obtaining leave from Court. The omission amounts to waiver of the challenge. Notwithstanding, his bid stood rejected on non-compliance with a requisition to furnish the revenue certificate. The rejection is beyond scope of present writ petition. Coordinate Bench had ‘dismissed as withdrawn’ earlier application for amendment made by petitioner. Mr. Biswal, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant-intervenor. He submits, his client is successful bidder but prevented from executing the work as petitioner continues.

It appears petitioner is continuing to work in spite of applicant-intervenor having had been chosen in the tender process. In view of aforesaid, we direct that petitioner will carry on with the extended period till 24th February, 2025, within which petitioner

On above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.