Disposed

Bibhu Prasad Patra v. the Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd.

Orissa HC14 Aug 2020WP(C)/13586/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Resolving a Public Interest Litigation alleging low quality installation of Mini-mast LED lights by contractors. The Court observed that PIL jurisdiction is limited to grave and urgent matters affecting larger public interest. Since representations were already made to the concerned authorities, the matter was not entertained by invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bibhu Prasad Patra Vs the Odisha Small Industries… — Consumer Protection | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.13586 of 2020

¶2

14.08.2020 Heard Mr. A.K.Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner by Video Conferencing mode.

¶3

This writ petition has been filed by one Bibhu Prasad Das in the style as Public Interest Litigation, praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the opposite party no.1 to stop disbursement of payment in favour of opposite party no.4 and 5 for installation of Mini-mast LED lights in 89 locations of Kakatpur Block in the district of Puri which is below standard and not to furnish Utilization Certificate by the opposite party-authority.

¶4

The facts of this case are that Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd. received a proposal from opposite party no.3 i.e. District Planning & Monitoring Unit, Puri for supply and installation of Mini-max Lights in different locations of Kakatpur Block in the District of Puri out of MLA LADs fund of the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. Accordingly, the Superintending Engineer, Civil Level-I, Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd.(for short-OSIC) published a notice inviting willingness on 5.2.2019 for interested MSMEs duly empanelled with OSIC having similar experience, and that they may visit the site and submit their willingness along with

¶5

-2-

¶6

detailed estimate to execute the work and the willingness letter must reach on or before 20.2.2019. However, opposite party no.1 issued a short notice on 25.2.2019 from experienced MSMEs duly empanelled with OSIC to submit their willingness on or before 6.3.2019. Total five tenders were received initially, but on 8.3.2019 Tender Committee rejected the estimate of opposite party no.4 on the ground that it has submitted the estimate for 31 locations as against 89 locations. However, the Tender Committee recommended the bid of opposite party no.5-M/s. Krish Indigenous Tech Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar which is found to be the single eligible bidder. But the opposite party no.1 issued the Work Order on 31.8.2019 in favour of opposite party no.5 for installation of Mini-mast LED light at Kakatpur Block of 58 locations only and issued Work Order for the remaining 31 locations in favour of opposite party no.4-M/s. Techland Systems Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

The allegation of the petitioner is that the Mini-mast LED lights installed are not up to the mark and are of very low quality. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Electrical), Kakatpur submitted his verification report on 28.10.2019 of different

¶8

-3-

¶9

Mini-mast LED light points under Kakatpur Sub-Division that 60 wattage of 4 LED bulbs used for 1 Mini-mast points. The Sarpanch, Jaleswarapada Gram Panchayat also submitted a representation on 23.5.2020 before opposite party no.1 for deviation in the installation of Mini-mast LED light by opposite party no.4 and 5 in Kakatpur Block. It is also submitted that part advance payment has been made in favour of opposite party no.4 despite the fact that low quality work has been noticed.

¶10

In the present case the Mini-mast LED lights have already been installed. Obviously, it would be for the opposite party no.1 to 3 to satisfy themselves about the quality of the Mini-mast LED lights. It is always open to them to take appropriate action if such lights are found not to have been installed as per the specification of the tender conditions.

¶11

Public Interest Litigation cannot be entertained in each and every matter that is brought before the Court.

¶12

The Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & ors. , (2010)3 SCC 402 held that genuine and bona fide PIL should be encouraged but PIL jurisdiction is available only where larger public interest is

¶13

-4-

¶14

involved and matter is so grave and urgent that it must take precedence over other matters. The Supreme Court in that judgment required all High Courts to frame rules relating to PIL so that need for formulation of procedure by individual Judges is obviated.

¶15

In the writ petition, it is stated that not only the petitioner but the Sarpanch concerned also has submitted detailed representation before the opposite parties in this regard, it would be appropriate for them to take a call in this matter. Therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to entertain the matter by invoking its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

¶17

( Mohammad Rafiq) Chief Justice

¶18

(Dr. B.R.Sarangi) Judge

¶19

Bibhu Prasad Patra v. the Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bibhu Prasad Patra v. the Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Prasad Mahakur Vs State of Odisha

Tirthananda Mallik Vs State of Odisha

Abani Kumar Gaya Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Mahavir Hardware Store Vs Canara Bank,Regional Office

Sannkar Kanar Vs the State of Odisha

Parbati Sandibigraha Vs State of Odisha