Kunja Tirkey vs State Of Odisha And Others

This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

Heard Mr. M. Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the execution of lease deed in favour of the single bidder, namely, opposite party no.5.

Mr. M. Kanungo, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. S.R. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the authority, though four bidders participated in the process of bid, but three of them disqualified, which is apparent from Annexure-3 dated 06.10.2020. Therefore, opposite party no.5 though remained as single bidder, the authority settled the bid in his favour by executing the agreement dated 02.02.2023 under Annexure-6. It is contended that against his disqualification order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner has moved the authority by filing a representation and without disposing of the same, the authority has settled the source in favour of the single bidder, which is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is contended that since the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the tendering authority in selecting opposite party no.5 and by executing the leased deed with him as a single bidder, he has filed representation before the authority instead of preferring appeal under Rule-46 of the OMMC Rules, which has not been taken into consideration. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Debabrata Samal v. State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No. 22315 of 2016 disposed of on 09.05.2017; Rangadhar Pradhan v. State of Odisha, AIR 2021 Ori 113; and judgment of the apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Cwe-Soma Consortium, AIR 2016 SC 3366: (2016) 14 SCC 172.

Mr. T. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties contended that the cause of action started on 06.10.2020, but after long lapse of near about two and half years the petitioner has filed this writ petition, which is not maintainable. It is further contended that even though there was delay in obtaining environmental clearance and complying with other statutory remedies by opposite party no.5 and the tendering authority entered into an agreement with him on 02.02.2023, the petitioner has caused grave delay in filing the writ petition, which is not permissible under law. He, however, stated that if opposite party no.5 is a single bidder, how he has executed the lease agreement with the State, he wants to obtain instruction on that score by the next date.

Issue notice to the opposite parties in the main case as well as in the interlocutory application.

Four extra copies of the writ petition be served on learned State Counsel appearing for opposite parties no.1 to 4 within three days enabling him to obtain instructions or file counter affidavit.

Steps for service of notice on the opposite party no.5 by speed post be taken within three days. Office shall send notice to the said opposite party fixing an early returnable date.

………………………………