JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. M/s Savitri Industries, a proprietorship firm and a small scale industry, established on 12.12.1984 is registered with the District Industries Centre, Cuttack for printing works including offset printing of Exercise Note-Books and also deals with supply of different varieties of paper. The petitioner firm is a regular participant in tender/notice inviting quotations for printing and paper supply in various parts of Odisha and has an established reputation for supply of different types/categories of high quality paper to both private and State Government agencies and institutions. Pursuant to a tender/quotation call notice issued by District Project Coordinator, opposite party no.2 on 08.01.2018 for printing of questions-cum-blank answer sheets for Assessment Exercise Summative-II, 2018 (Class-I to VIII) and Student Report Card for Cuttack district for the year 2017-18, the petitioner submitted its bid. The last date of receipt of quotation was 18.01.2018 and the same was to be opened on 19.01.2018 in the District Project Office, RTE-SSA, Cuttack. The petitioner, which is dealing with two types of pulp boards, i.e., white and pink, submitted its financial offer/bid in respect of both types of pulp boards of 220 grams per square meter. On 19.01.2018, the technical bid was opened in presence of bidders and also the bid evaluation committee opened the financial bid on the very same day. The bid evaluation committee found that the bid of the petitioner was in two heads, i.e., Rs.1.87/-per card in respect of pink pulp board and Rs.2.50/-per card in respect of white pulp board. The price of the petitioner was found to be lowest, i.e., 1.87 paisa per pink pulp board, but the committee had certain reservations regarding pink pulp board, therefore the committee enquired from the representative of the petitioner whether the petitioner was willing to supply the white pulp board with the quality of sample enclosed with the bid of pink pulp board @ Rs.1.87/-per card. The petitioner agreed to supply white pulp board @ Rs.1.87/-per card. Thereafter, the opposite party directed the petitioner to submit a consent letter to supply white pulp board @ Rs.1.87/-per card. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted its consent on 19.01.2018 agreeing to supply white pulp board @ Rs.1.87/-per card. The petitioner agreed to supply white pulp board @ Rs.1.87/-per card. Thereafter, the opposite party directed the petitioner to submit a consent letter to supply white pulp board @ Rs.1.87/-per card. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted its consent on 19.01.2018 agreeing to supply white pulp board @ Rs.1.87/-per card. The opposite party no.2, vide its letter dated 24.01.2018, directed the petitioner to submit ten full scape size sheets of white pulp board papers with seal and signature for verification of paper quality for finalization of printing of Student Report Card, 2018. The petitioner complied with the same, but the opposite parties, without any rhyme and reason and without communicating any decision, issued a fresh tender call notice on 06.02.2018 inviting bids in respect of white pulp board and opening of the said technical bid was fixed to 24.02.2018 and financial bid to 27.02.2018, hence this application. 2. Mr. S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the tender call notice dated 08.01.2018, the petitioner having participated in the said proceeding and quoted lowest price of Rs.1.87/-per card and submitted its consent letter agreeing to supply white pulp board with the same price, there was no valid and justifiable reason to issue a fresh tender for the selfsame material on 06.02.2018. More particularly, opposite party no.1 cannot exercise its power to rescind/annul the tender process, which has reached its finality, and, without any rhyme and reason, go for a fresh tender, particularly when the petitioner being L-1 the opposite parties had held out promise to allot the work in its favour, and therefore the subsequent tender issued on 06.02.2018 is hit by principles of estoppel. He further contended that as such the conduct of the opposite parties is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, particularly when the offer of the petitioner was made known to other competitive bidders pursuant to tender call notice dated 08.01.2018. In that case, the issuance of subsequent tender on 06.02.2018 for the selfsame material amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power by the authority, which raises serious question regarding fairness and transparency in the decision making process. In that case, the issuance of subsequent tender on 06.02.2018 for the selfsame material amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power by the authority, which raises serious question regarding fairness and transparency in the decision making process. It is further contended that the opposite parties, having accepted the price quoted by the petitioner vide its consent letter dated 19.01.2018 and directed the petitioner vide letter dated 24.01.2018 for submission of samples, could not and should not have turned around and issued a fresh tender call notice on 06.02.2018. Thereby, the action of the opposite parties in issuing the fresh tender/quotation call notice on 06.02.2018 cannot sustain in the eye of law and therefore seeks for quashing of the same and direction to the opposite parties for finalization of the tender in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the tender call notice dated 08.01.2018. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court as well as apex Court in the cases of Shree Ganesh Construction v. State of Orissa, 2016 (II) OLR 237, Gangadhar Jena v. State of Odisha, 2017 (II) OLR 611 and Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, AIR 2015 SC 901 . 3. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Pranay Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties, while justifying the action taken by the opposite parties in issuing the fresh tender call notice dated 06.02.2018, contended that the petitioner having given a conditional offer by quoting price for pink pulp board as well as white pulp board, the same could not have been accepted. M/s Data Forms having quoted lowest price @ Rs.1.953/-per card, pursuant to tender call notice dated 06.02.2018, the tender evaluation committee decided to select the said L-1 firm with a condition that the sample paper would be collected randomly from its press and sent to the testing laboratory for verification of paper quality. It is further contended that tender call notice dated 08.01.2018 was found defective for the reasons that the colour of the paper was not indicated therein, which necessitated to cancel the said notice and consequentially issue a fresh tender on 06.02.2018 specifically giving the colour of the paper, thereby no illegality or irregularity has been committed. Therefore, any action taken pursuant to such tender call notice cannot be found faulted with. Therefore, any action taken pursuant to such tender call notice cannot be found faulted with. Consequentially, this Court should refrain from interfering with the same and accordingly seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. We have heard Mr. S. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. Pranay Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. Pleadings having been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 5. For just and proper adjudication of the case, the relevant terms and conditions for printing and supply of questions-cum-answer sheet of SA-II format of evaluation and Student Report Card for the year 2017-18 pursuant to the tender call notice dated 08.01.2018 are reproduced below :- “2. The date and time schedule relating to “Quotation for printing and supply of report card, 2017-18 (Class I to VIII) are cited as under. Sl. No. Activity Date and Time 1. Last Date for Submission of Quotation Papers 18.01.2018 by 5 P.M. 2. Opening of Quotation 19.01.2018 at 11 A.M. xx xx xx 4. The successful bidder will have to deposit Rs. 20,000/- as security money at the time of execution of agreement in shape of DD drawn on any nationalized bank in favour of the District Project Coordinator SSA, Cuttack payable at Cuttack. xx xx xx 7. Conditional Quotation shall not be considered. xx xx xx 17. The bidders have to submit their technical bid and financial bid as per the format enclosed at annexure-‘A’ and ‘B’ in separate envelope. xx xx xx The Collector-cum-Chairman, SSA, Cuttack reserves the right to accept or reject any or all Quotation without assigning any reason thereof.” 6. Abiding by the terms and conditions for printing and supply of Students Report Card, 2017-18 in Annexure-3, the petitioner submitted its application for technical bid as prescribed in Annexure-A on 18.01.2018 and also submitted application for financial bid in the prescribed form as Annexure-B on the very same day, which reads thus :- Sl. No. Type of printing material Specification Cost of printing per card (in Rs.) Total rate quoted for printing of 205140 nos. of Report Card 1. Students Report Card Paper Quality-220 GSM Pulp Board Size of paper–Demy 1 / 4 Printing – Bi-Colour Rs. 1.87 (pink pulp Board) Rs. No. Type of printing material Specification Cost of printing per card (in Rs.) Total rate quoted for printing of 205140 nos. of Report Card 1. Students Report Card Paper Quality-220 GSM Pulp Board Size of paper–Demy 1 / 4 Printing – Bi-Colour Rs. 1.87 (pink pulp Board) Rs. 2.50(White pulp Board) Rs. 3,83,611.80 (pink pulp) Rs. 5,12,850.00 (white pulp) Including the petitioner, seven firms submitted their bids through registered/speed post. The bids were opened on 19.01.2018 in presence of the bidders and their authorized representatives and it was found that the petitioner had quoted two different rates for two different colours of sample papers. In absence of specifications as regards the colour of the paper in the tender call notice, the committee resolved to get the printing in white paper. Except the petitioner firm, which had quoted price for white and pink papers, all other bidding firms had quoted price for white paper. Consequentially, the petitioner was asked for negotiation with price for printing of white paper and after detailed deliberation the petitioner agreed to print and supply the Students Report Card @ Rs.1.87 paisa in 220 GSM white pulp board and for such purpose submitted the letter of consent. Thereafter, the committee verified the sample papers submitted by the bidders and resolved to send the sample paper of the petitioner firm to testing laboratory for verification of paper quality as prescribed in the tender call notice. Accordingly, the petitioner, on being asked for, submitted ten sample papers before the committee. 7. At this point of time, M/s Ankita Graphics Pvt. Ltd., which was the L-2 in terms of the price quoted for the printing, submitted a written complaint alleging therein that clause-6 of the terms and conditions of the tender call notice in question has been violated. It was further stated that the petitioner having submitted the price of two types of papers, one for pink pulp and the other for white pulp, thereby it became a conditional quotation whereas others have offered only one colour paper, i.e., white pulp. Therefore, it was decided to cancel the first tender/quotation call notice and go for fresh tender, for which tender call notice dated 06.02.2018 was issued. 8. Therefore, it was decided to cancel the first tender/quotation call notice and go for fresh tender, for which tender call notice dated 06.02.2018 was issued. 8. The reason for going for second tender call notice has only been indicated in the counter affidavit and, as such, no material has been placed for showing such reasons for going for second tender call notice. More particularly, on the basis of the complaint lodged by a rival bidder that the petitioner had submitted a conditional quotation, which violates clause-6 of the tender call notice, a fresh tender has been issued, cannot sustain in the eye of law, in view of the fact that admittedly the tender call notice dated 08.01.2018 does not indicate the colour of the pulp board to be supplied by the bidders. As such, the petitioner having quoted two separate prices for two colours of pulp board, namely, pink and white quoting Rs.1.87/- and Rs.2.50/- respectively, it cannot be stated that he has made a conditional offer, rather the petitioner has quoted the price of different colour of pulp boards made available with him and, as such, having satisfied with the price quoted, the tender inviting committee called upon the petitioner to quote the price of pink pulp board for white pulp board, basing upon which the petitioner submitted its consent report and the offer made by the petitioner being lowest one, i.e., Rs.1.87/-per card, the same having been accepted, there is no valid and justifiable reason to go for a second tender call notice for the selfsame material on 06.02.2018. 9. Needless to say that an offer or proposal having been accepted in terms of Section 2(a) and (b) of the Indian Contract Act, it has become a promise and consequentially the same should have been acted upon, instead of going for a fresh tender on 06.02.2018. A perusal of the comparative statement that evaluates all financial bids vide Annexure-5 would go to show that the petitioner had quoted the lowest price @ Rs.1.87 paise per card by submitting its consent for supply of white pulp board, being the lowest tenderer pursuant to the tender call notice issued on 08.01.2018. A perusal of the comparative statement that evaluates all financial bids vide Annexure-5 would go to show that the petitioner had quoted the lowest price @ Rs.1.87 paise per card by submitting its consent for supply of white pulp board, being the lowest tenderer pursuant to the tender call notice issued on 08.01.2018. But subsequently, when fresh tender was invited on 06.02.2018, in response to the same 9 bidders had participated and out of them 3 bidders, namely, (1) East Coast Ruboclaim (P) Ltd., (2) Sailza Printers and (3) Anjali Printing and Supplies had not supported with the required papers and documents and consequently they were disqualified. Therefore, rest 6 bids were opened on 27.02.2018 where it was found M/s Data Forms had quoted lowest price @ Rs.1.953 paise per card and became L-1. But if the comparison is made between the price quoted by the petitioner and M/s Data Forms pursuant to tender call notice dated 08.01.2018 and 06.02.2018 respectively, even then the petitioner quoted lowest price @ Rs.1.87 paise per card for the white pulp board by submitting its consent letter, which had already been accepted and basing upon which the opposite parties had acted upon. Once the petitioner having found L-1 by quoting Rs.1.87 paise per card, pursuant to tender call notice dated 08.01.2018, instead of allowing the petitioner to perform its part of contract, issuance of fresh tender dated 06.02.2018, without assigning reasons thereof, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 10. As a matter of fact, the opposite parties have not cancelled the tender dated 08.01.2018. Apart from the same, pursuant to the consent letter received by the opposite parties and the petitioner having agreed to supply the white pulp board at the rate quoted for pink pulp board @ Rs.1.87 paise per card, it has held out a promise. Once a promise has been held out, the opposite parties cannot turn around and go for a fresh tender, without assigning reasons therefor, thereby the entire conduct of the opposite parties is hit by principle of estoppel. The reasons, which have been assigned for going for second tender on 06.02.2018, have only been culminated in the counter affidavit for the first time. Therefore, such reasons cannot be accepted in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the cases of Shree Ganesh Construction and Gangadhar Jena mentioned supra. 11. The reasons, which have been assigned for going for second tender on 06.02.2018, have only been culminated in the counter affidavit for the first time. Therefore, such reasons cannot be accepted in view of the ratio decided by this Court in the cases of Shree Ganesh Construction and Gangadhar Jena mentioned supra. 11. In H.R. Basavaraj v. Canara Bank (2010) 12 SCC 458 , the apex Court, relying upon the judgment in B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy, (2003) 2 SCC 355 held that a bar that prevents one from asserting a claim or right that contradicts what one has said or done before or what has been legally established as true. ‘Estoppel’ is based on the maxim allegans contrarir non est audiendus (a party is not to be heard contrary) and is the spicy of presumption juries et de jure (absolute, or conclusive or irrebuttable presumption). In general words, estoppel is a principle applicable when one person induces another or intentionally causes the other person to believe something to be true and to act upon such belief as to change his/her position. In such a case, the former shall be Estopped from going back on the word given. The principle of estoppel is only applicable in cases where the other party has changed his positions relying upon the representation thereby made. 12. Applying such principles to the present context, the petitioner, on being asked by the opposite parties, having submitted its consent letter to supply the white pulp board at the rate prescribed for pink pulp board @ Rs.1.87 paise pursuant to tender call notice dated 08.01.2018, subsequently the opposite parties could not have turned around and gone for a fresh tender call notice, thereby entire action of the opposite parties is hit by principle of promissory estoppel. 13. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner having quoted the price @ Rs.1.87 paise for supply of white pulp board pursuant to tender call notice dated 08.01.2018 and acted upon the same, the opposite parties could not have gone for issuing a fresh tender call notice on 06.02.2018 without assigning any reason for non-acceptance of the offer submitted by the petitioner pursuant to tender call notice dated 08.01.2018 and more particularly even in the second tender also the price quoted by L-1 tenderer is higher than the price quoted by the petitioner pursuant to tender call notice dated 08.01.2018. As such, the action of the opposite parties going for second tender, being hit by principle of estoppel, and the same having been justified for the first time by way of filing counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. As a result therefore, the tender call notice dated 06.02.2018 and consequential action thereof are hereby quashed and the opposite parties are directed to act upon the bid submitted by the petitioner pursuant to tender call notice dated 08.01.2018. 14. The writ application thus stands allowed. No order as to costs.