JUDGMENT VINEET SARAN, CJ. - Heard Mr. Goutam Acharya, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the bid submitted by it for supply of report cards for the year, 2016-17. 3. Brief facts are that in response to the tender call notice dated 17.3.2017 issued by the Chairman, Sarbasikshya Abhiyan, Mayurbhanj-opposite party No. 2 for printing and supply of report cards, the petitioner along with five other bidders had participated. The case of the petitioner is that though its bid was the lowest, yet the same was cancelled. According to the petitioner, no order of cancellation was communicated to the petitioner, but it was informed that the petitioner was a defaulter in the previous year’s contract for supply of report cards in which it had not only delayed in supplying the report cards but had also defaulted in making full supplies. Challenging the said action of the opposite parties, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite parties in Court today, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that the petitioner does not wish to file rejoinder affidavit. 5. From the chart giving details of the rates quoted by the six bidders it is clear that the bid of the petitioner was the third lowest. The bids which were the lowest and 2nd lowest were rejected on the ground of there being over writing in the rates quoted. The bid of the petitioner (3rd lowest) has been rejected due to the petitioner being a defaulter in the previous year. 6. It is the admitted position that in the previous year, the petitioner was given the contract for supplying printed report cards by 13.04.2016, which was in respect of 26 Blocks, but it could not supply the report cards within such time, which was then extended to 30.04.2016. Subsequently, the said date for supply was further extended on 21.06.2016 up to 30.07.2016. the petitioner admittedly could not make the supply of all the printed report cards within the extended time also. 7. Subsequently, the said date for supply was further extended on 21.06.2016 up to 30.07.2016. the petitioner admittedly could not make the supply of all the printed report cards within the extended time also. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that out of 26 Blocks, the report cards were supplied by the petitioner up to the extended time of 30.07.2016 in respect of 19 Blocks only, and for the remaining 7 Blocks, the supply could not be made. 8. In such view of the matter, the petitioner does not dispute the fact that it had defaulted in supply of report cards as per terms of the contract in the previous year. The nature of the supply, which is of report cards for the students, is sensitive, in the sense that report cards are to be provided to the students within a stipulated time, for which the supply in the previous year was to be made by 13.4.2016. Admittedly, the petitioner could not make the supply of the reports cards even within the extended time, which was up to 30.07.2016. According to his own case, the petitioner has made partial supply for 19 out of 26 blocks within the extended time and thereafter, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Collector, Mayurbhanj, which is pending consideration. As such, the rejection of case of the petitioner on the ground that it had defaulted in the previous year is perfectly justified. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the terms of the tender call notice, there was no condition that the tenders of defaulters would not be accepted. In the counter affidavit, it is had been stated that besides the fact that the petitioner was a defaulter in the previous year, there was overwriting in the rates quoted by the petitioner in the tender for the present year, and for that reason also, the tender of the petitioner was to be rejected. Such ground of over writing has not been mentioned in the order cancelling the tender of the petitioner and is an additional reason given in the counter affidavit which may not be strictly acceptable. 10. Be that as it may, it is noteworthy that considering the nature of the job work which was to be carried out, time is the essence, as report cards are to be provided to the students within the stipulated time. 10. Be that as it may, it is noteworthy that considering the nature of the job work which was to be carried out, time is the essence, as report cards are to be provided to the students within the stipulated time. In the counter affidavit, it has been specifically stated that because of the past conduct of the petitioner it has been treated as black listed. It is noteworthy that the averments made in the counter affidavit with regard to overwriting in the rates quoted by the petitioner in the tender papers, as well as the averments made relating to black listing of the petitioner-firm have not been controverted by filing a rejoinder affidavit. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of argument, contended that there was no overwriting or black-listing order passed. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has chosen not to controvert such averments made in the counter affidavit by filing rejoinder affidavit, the statements made in the counter affidavit are taken as true. Even otherwise, since the petitioner is admittedly a defaulter in the previous year, we would not be inclined to exercise out equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of such a defaulter. 12. In view of the aforesaid fact of this case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner would not entitle to grant of any relief, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.