Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1309 (ORI)

Bhagyadhar Dash v. State of Odisha

2017-11-14

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties. 2. Learned Addl. Government Advocate was granted time to obtain instructions, which he states to have received. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of at this stage. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in response to a tender call notice dated 12.09.2017 issued by the opposite parties for certain work to be carried out, the petitioner had participated, along with other bidders. The bid submitted by the petitioner was at 29% above the estimated cost. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Clause 69(a) of the Tender Conditions, the price bid was to be inclusive of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), which was included by the petitioner in his bid price, but the other bidders did not quote their prices after including the GST. He further submits that the price bids of the other bidders were abnormally low and thus not workable and, as such, their bids should be rejected. 5. On having received instructions, learned Addl. Government Advocate has submitted that in all there were 14 bids received, including that of the petitioner. Out of them, 12 bidders had quoted 14.99% less than the estimated cost. Another bidder had quoted 6.78% less than the estimated cost and the petitioner had quoted 29% above the estimated cost. 6. Shri B.P. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate has stated that since there were 12 lowest bidders, a lottery was conducted, in which the successful bidder was M/s. Hemant Kumar Agrawal & Company, which has already been awarded the contract after the firm having furnished the Additional Performance Security for the requisite amount. 7. In reply to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate has stated that all the prices which have been quoted by the other bidders are also inclusive of GST and, as such, it is wrong to state that the prices quoted by the bidders other than the petitioner were without including the GST. In reply to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate has stated that all the prices which have been quoted by the other bidders are also inclusive of GST and, as such, it is wrong to state that the prices quoted by the bidders other than the petitioner were without including the GST. As regards the submission of the petitioner that the price quoted by the other bidders is unworkable, Shri Pradhan has submitted that after a detailed study, which was conducted before issuance of the tender, the estimated price was calculated and the Committee had found that the workable price would be up to 15% less than the estimated cost. Since the lowest bidders had quoted 14.99% less than the estimated cost, the same would be within the workable price as calculated by the opposite parties. In view of the aforesaid, in our view, both the objections raised by learned counsel for the petitioner do not hold good and since the contract has already been awarded to the lowest bidder after conducting lottery, we would not be inclined to interfere in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.