Disposed

M/S.Singh Security Service v. Vice Chairman,Cuttack Development Authority

Orissa HC11 Nov 2020WP(C)/21082/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ petition seeking specific performance of a contract award became infructuous due to the cancellation of the tender process by the respondent. The Court directed the refund of deposited security amount within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to refund the deposited security amount of Rs.67,000/- within 15 days.

M/S.Singh Security Service Vs Vice Chairman,Cuttack… — Company and Corporate | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 21082 of 2019

¶2

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. DASH

¶3

11.11.2020

¶4

Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, Advocate --- For the Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, Advocate --- For the Opp.Parties

¶6

ORDER

¶7

The Court is convened through Video Conferencing

¶8

mode.

¶9

Heard Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party-CDA.

¶10

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-M/s. Singh Security Service inter alia with the prayer that the opposite parties-Cuttack Development Authority be directed to execute the contract for award of the work in favour of the petitioner as he was found L-1 having quoted lowest rate for the work in question.

¶11

Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite parties-CDA submits that for various reasons the opposite parties have taken decision to cancel the tender process and have decided to issue fresh tender. He referred to order dated 04.11.2020 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.6951 of 2018 and informed the Court about disposal of the writ petition.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that there is no requirement for the opposite parties to cancel the process of tender particularly when the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) on 21.01.2018 and Rs.17,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand) on 24.04.2018 as security amount as per condition of the tender call notice.

¶13

-2-

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the order dated 04.11.2020 passed in W.P.(C) No.6951 of 2018 and the decision taken by the opposite parties in canceling the tender process, we are of the view that the present writ petition has become infructuous. However, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the opposite party-Cuttack Development Authority to refund the amount of Rs.67,000/-, if deposited by the petitioner as per condition of the tender call notice, within a period of fifteen days from the date a copy of this order is received.

¶15

As lock-down period is continuing for COVID-19, learned counsel for the petitioners may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶16

(C.R. Dash) (Mohammad Rafiq) Judge Chief Justice

¶17

SKJ

M/S.Singh Security Service v. Vice Chairman,Cuttack Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Singh Security Service v. Vice Chairman,Cuttack Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binodini Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Priya Darsan Ray Vs State of Odisha

Mandeepa Enterprises Vs Odisha Bridge and Construction Corporation Ltd.

Preeti Snigdha Agasti Vs State of Odisha

Lokanath Murudi Vs D.G.and I.G.of Police

Rajendra Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha