JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. Heard Mr. Gautam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. This writ petition has been filed by Santoshi Infotech Computer Centre, a sole proprietary concern represented by its sole Proprietor Smt. Bharati Choudhury, questioning the rejection of the technical bid of the Petitioner by the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 for providing Data Entry Operators for MGNREGS, MGNREGS Assistant, Assistant Computer Programmer and Data Entry Operator for OLM. The Petitioner challenges the award of the said tender to the Opposite Party No.4 despite the Petitioner being the lowest tenderer. 4. The background facts are that on 26th June, 2020, the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Nabarangpur (DRDA) issued an advertisement inviting tenders for the above purpose. The Petitioner states that within the due date and time, i.e., 5 pm on 30th July 2020, the Petitioner submitted all the requisite documents, which included the Registration Certificate (RC) were issued under the Odisha Shops & Commercial Establishment Act, 1956 (OSCE Act) issued by the District Labour Commissioner, Nabarangpur, a GST Registration Certificate, document relating to the Provident Fund issued by the Sub-Regional Office, Berhampur, Certificate issued by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Regional Office, Bhubaneswar. Also included among these documents was the license issued by the Licensing Officer and District Labour Officer, Nabarangpur dated 21st November, 2009 containing endorsements of renewal up to 21st November, 2020. 5. It appears that there were 18 bidders, whose technical bids were opened on 14th July, 2020. 9 out of the 18 bidders qualified in the technical bid. The Petitioner's technical bid was not accepted. According to the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 verbally communicated to the Petitioner that the technical bid had been rejected because the Petitioner was not registered with the IGR, Cuttack and no documents with regard thereto was submitted along with the tender documents. 8. On 15th July 2020, the Petitioner wrote to the Project Director, DRDA (Opposite Party No.3) to disclose the reasons for nonacceptance of its technical bid. On 16th July 2020, the Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) seeking the reasons for rejection of the technical bid. But no reply was forthcoming. 8. On 15th July 2020, the Petitioner wrote to the Project Director, DRDA (Opposite Party No.3) to disclose the reasons for nonacceptance of its technical bid. On 16th July 2020, the Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) seeking the reasons for rejection of the technical bid. But no reply was forthcoming. Meanwhile the Petitioner learnt that the contract was to be awarded to Opposite Party No.4. Hence, the present writ petition was filed. 9. When the petition was listed on 24th September 2020, learned Additional Government Advocate sought time to file a reply. Thereafter on 5th October 2020, the Court, while directing the writ petition to be listed along with W.P.(C) No.17709/2020 (M/s. Famous Security Service v. State of Odisha) required the copy of the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 in the present petition to be served on the Petitioner. The Court granted time to the Opposite Party No.4 to file its counter affidavit. 10. At this stage, it must be noted that, W.P.(C) No.17709/2020 had been filed in the context of the Project Director, DRDA, Nabarangpur not conducting a transparent lottery among the bidders, who had quoted more than Rs.7/- in the tender process. The Petitioner in the said petition questioned the manner in which Opposite Party No.3 had desired to award the tender in favour of the persons, who had quoted abnormally low service charges contrary to the directives of the Finance Department issued on 22nd May 2018. 11. Initially in W.P.(C) No.17709/2020, an interim order was passed by this Court on 6th August, 2020 directing that the Opposite Parties will not finalise the tender till the next date. It may be noted here that ultimately W.P.(C) No.17709/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn on 24th September, 2020 by this Court. 12. Reverting to the present writ petition, in the counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Parties 2 and 3, the reasons for rejecting the technical bid of the Petitioner as stated in para 5 are that the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) had learnt that the Petitioner was not authorized by the competent authority to carry out the business of providing manpower services to different government offices and organizations. It is mentioned in para 5 that the Petitioner had only submitted the RC issued under the OSCE Act, which was relevant only for the purposes of the Petitioner running a computer center by engaging some employees in the office. 13. In para 7, it is stated that, three bidders had quoted Rs.1/- per person as service charge for providing manpower and were declared as L-1 bidders. To finalise one of the three L-1 bidders, the TEC adopted a lottery system and that is how the work was finally awarded to Opposite Party No.4. 14. It may be also stated that on 18th August 2020, the Petitioner filed an additional affidavit placing on record, the information obtained through the RTI Act. The proceedings of the TEC reveal the reason for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid as under:- 'The firm is not registered under appropriate authorities i.e. Society Registration Act/Partnership Act/Company Act, Registered under shop and Commercial Act by District Labour Officer is not acceptable.' 15. The Petitioner has in a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed, pointed out that there was an obvious non-application of mind since it was overlooked by the TEC that the Petitioner was a proprietary concern and not a partenrship firm. Therefore, the question of having a registration under the Partnership Act/ Companies Act/Societies Registration Act did not arise at all. 16. In fact, the reason stated in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner was not authorized to carry out the business of providing manpower was not the reason stated by the TEC. The Petitioner has drawn attention to the fact that the question of non-submission of an IGR registration certificate did not arise, as IGR deals with registration of partnership firms and societies whereas the Petitioner is a proprietory concern. The Petitioner has pointed out how it has been providing DEOs under other contracts for a long period of time. 17. On this issue, Mr. Gautam Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on 6th January, 2021 drew the attention of the Court to the license dated 21st November, 2009 issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Licensing Officer and District Labour Officer, Nabarangpur, authorizing the Petitioner to supply manpower like Data Entry Operators, Security Personnel, Clerks, Watchman/Peons etc. to the principal of the employer i.e. Project Director, DRDA, Nabarangpur. The said licence license was extended till 21st November, 2020. 18. to the principal of the employer i.e. Project Director, DRDA, Nabarangpur. The said licence license was extended till 21st November, 2020. 18. This Court on 6th January, 2021 has passed the following order: '06.01.2021- This matter is taken up through video conferencing. One of the grounds of rejection of Petitioner's technical bid is that, there is no document to show that it is authorized to supply manpower. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the document at page-42 of the paper book purporting to be the license issued by the Government of Odisha authorizing the Petitioner to supply manpower with endorsement thereon to indicate that the license has been renewed up to 21st November, 2020. Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate seeks time to verify whether in fact the aforementioned document was submitted by the Petitioner along with its bid. He states that he will examine the original record. At the request of Mr. Sahoo, list on 22nd January, 2021.' 19. Today, Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Opposite Parties, confirms that the above license copy was part of the bid document and was not accounted for by either the TEC or even the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, while rejecting the technical bid of the Petitioner. 20. On this aspect, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.4 sought to take an exception to the fact that license was issued in the name of Smt. Bharati Choudhury and not the bidder which was M/s. Santoshi Infotech Computer Centre. The submission is misconceived for the simple reason that the license reads as under: 'License is hereby granted to SMT. BHARATI CHOUDHURY, S/O. SUBRAT CHOUDHURY, M/S. SANTOSHI INFOTECH COMPUTER CENTRE, MAIN ROAD, NABARANGPUR DIST: NABARANGPUR under Sec-12(1) of the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970, subject to the conditions specified in annexure overleaf to supply of manpower like, data Entry Operators, Security Personnel, Clerks, watchman/Peon etc. to the Principal Employer 'PROJECT DIRECTOR, D.R.D.A., NABARANGPUR.' 21. Since it is a sole proprietary concern, the name of the sole proprietor is mentioned and immediately thereafter, the name of the proprietary concern is mentioned in the license. It is, therefore, erroneous on the part of the Respondent No.4 to contend that the licence is not in the name of the proprietary concern, which submitted the bid. 22. Since it is a sole proprietary concern, the name of the sole proprietor is mentioned and immediately thereafter, the name of the proprietary concern is mentioned in the license. It is, therefore, erroneous on the part of the Respondent No.4 to contend that the licence is not in the name of the proprietary concern, which submitted the bid. 22. The further reason given by the TEC for rejecting the technical bid, viz., that there was no RC of the IGR is also not tenable because such registration admittedly is only for partnership farms and not proprietary concerns like the Petitioner. Consequently, neither of the reasons given by the TEC or by the Opposite Parties for rejecting the technical bid of the Petitioner is sustainable in law. 23. Mr. Sahoo submitted that the Petitioner had quoted an absorbedly low price of Re. 0.01, which is contrary to the Finance Department Circular dated 22nd May, 2018, referred to earlier. In the first place, it has been noticed that the notice inviting tender did not refer to the aforementioned Circular of the Finance Department at all. Therefore, that could not be used to be a ground to reject the bid of the Petitioner. Even in the counter affidavit, this has not been raised as an issue because it would have arisen only in the event the financial bid of the Petitioner was to be considered. 24. In I.A. No.14629 of 2020 filed by the Petitioner, instances where price was quoted below Rs.1/- for certain other contracts by bidders and have been accepted, have been set out. The Petitioner has cited the following instances: '1) Puri District Headquarters Hospital - Agency Name (Care Security); 2) Puri Municipality - Agency Name (Jagruti Security); 3) Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan, Nabarangpur - Agency Name (Mind Mart, Bhubaneswar) 4) Industrial Training Institute, Puri - concerned Agency has also made bids below Re.1/- 5) Mid Day Meal Programme by District Education Office, Nabarangpur - concerned Agency has also made bids below Re.1/-. 6) District Headquarters Hospital, Bhawanipatna, District Kalahandi - Agency name (Anil Security Service) 7) Government College of Engineering, Bhawanipatna, District Kalahandi - Agency Name (M/s. Sai Security Service, Bhubaneswar).' 25. There is no denial of the above facts by the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. If indeed the Finance Department Circular was being acted upon, there was no reason to accept the above bids. There is no denial of the above facts by the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. If indeed the Finance Department Circular was being acted upon, there was no reason to accept the above bids. There is merit in the contention of Mr. Mishra that the Circular of the Finance Department dated 22nd May, 2018 cannot be relied upon to reject the Petitioner's price bid unless it was mentioned in the tender document itself, in which case the Petitioner and other bidders may have been put on notice that they could not quote below a certain minimum amount. 26 .1 Mr. Mishra refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. v. Mhaharishi Publishers Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 1 SCC 95 in support of the contention that a different treatment cannot be meted out to the Petitioner in such instance. In that case, pursuant to the Policy of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and a Scheme for encouraging newspaper concerns and educational institutions, lands were allotted at affordable prices. Two acres of such lands was assigned to the Respondent. Despite complying with all conditions and depositing the amount demanded, possession was not given of the land to the Respondent, which was in contrast with the treatment meted out to three other publishers/institutions, which were similarly situated. When this was challenged in a writ petition by three such entities including the Petitioner, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the State Government to hand over possession of the respective lands to the three Petitioners. 26 .2 When the appeal filed by the State was still pending, fresh GOs were issued by the State Government purporting to cancel the allotments with a direction to the Collector to repay the amount deposited to the Respondent. The States' writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench and the fresh GOs cancelled. 26 .3 Dismissing the further appeal filed by the State Government, the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that, there was hostile discrimination against the Petitioners in the High Court, by being subjected to a treatment different than other similarly situated newspaper concerns and other institutions. It was held that there was a violation of the fundamental rights of the writ petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 27. It was held that there was a violation of the fundamental rights of the writ petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 27. In the present case, when similarly situated entities have been allowed to quote Rs.1/- and their bids have been accepted in other contracts without enforcing the Circular dated 22nd May, 2018 of the Finance Department, there is no reason why the Petitioner's bid alone was liable to be rejected because of the Petitioner quoted Rs.0.01 paise in the price bid. This again would not be a valid ground for rejection of the Petitioner's bid. 28. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the decision of the TEC to award the tender for the 'Selection of the Manpower Service Provider to provide The Service of Data Entry Operators for MGNREGS, MGNREGS Assistant, Assistant Computer Programmer and Data Entry Operator for OLM' in favour of the Opposite Party No.4 is hereby quashed. A direction is issued to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to award the aforementioned work in favour of the Petitioner and issue necessary orders in this regard not later than two weeks from today. 29. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No orders as to costs. 30. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order/judgment available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020.