Allowed

Subhransu Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC1 Sept 2017WP(C)/18557/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition in accordance with the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 7120 of 2017. The Court quashed the condition in the Office Memorandum dated 04.05.2016 imposing Additional Performance Security at the time of bid submission, holding such security can only be required from the successful bidder.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the condition in Office Memorandum dated 04.05.2016 providing Additional Performance Security at the time of bid submission.

Subhransu Tripathy Vs State of Odisha — Company and Corporate | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 18557 of 2017

¶2

02. 01.09.2017 Learned counsel for the parties agree that the issue
involved in this writ petition with regard to Office Memorandum dated 04.05.2016 issued by the
 Works Department of the Government of Odisha is identical to one involved in W.P.(C) No. 7120
 of 2017 and it is, thus, contended that this writ petition may be disposed of in term of the
said judgment.

¶3

 Accordingly, for the reasons given in the judgment dated 24.07
.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7120 of 2017 (Ajay Kumar Jain vs. State of Odisha and others), thi
s writ petition also stands allowed to the extent that the condition imposed by Office Memoran
dum dated 04.05.2016 by amending Para-3.5.5(v) of Note-II of OPWD Code Vol. 1 by modifying the
 same and providing that Additional Performance Security (APS) of the amount of difference bet
ween the estimated cost and the cost of bid (if lower than the estimated cost) is to be provid
ed at the time of submission of the bid, is quashed.

¶4

 The said condition of providing Additional Performance Securit
y of the amount of difference can be imposed only for a successful bidder which can be require
d to be provided within such stipulated time as may be provided for, or else the bid of the su
ccessful bidder would be cancelled and the security deposit would be forfeited, if permissible
 in law, and further proceeding for blacklisting would be initiated as per law.

¶5

 We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion with r
egard to Office Memorandum dated 08.11.2013 or with regard to other prayers made in the writ p
etition, as the prayer for quashing the Office Memorandum dated 04.05.2016 alone has been cons
idered. No order as to costs.

¶6

 This writ petition thus stands disposed of.

¶7

 Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper appli

¶8

cation.

¶9

 B. K. Nayak, J.

¶10

 Dr. D. P. Choudhury, J.

Subhransu Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhransu Tripathy v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Netrananda Malik Vs State of Odisha

Satyabrata Parida Vs State of Odisha

Ashutosh Maharana Vs State of Orissa

Pyarimohan Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Braja Kishor Choudhary Vs State of Odisha

Laxmi Narayan Jain Vs State of Orissa