Disposed

M Tech Innovations Ltd. v. Commissioner Cum Secretary

Orissa HC21 Aug 2020WP(C)/9541/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a case lodged for the cancellation of a work order for the supply and installation of biometric devices. The court has not decided the writ petition but has ordered the petitioner to file a representation to which the matter will be disposed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to file a representation within four weeks, to be disposed by the opposite party within four weeks.

M Tech Innovations Ltd. Vs Commissioner Cum Secretary — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 9541 of 2020

¶2

21.08.2020 This matter is taken up through video

¶3

conferencing.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

¶5

Petitioner in this writ petition challenges the action of opposite party in cancelling the work order vide order dated 6.2.2020 for supply, installation & commissioning of “Biometric devices for finger print detection system” and automation of biometric date from the device to centralize system which was issued in its favour on 28.11.2019 vide Annexure-5 pursuant to the tender dated 10^th August, 2019.

¶6

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the above tender is a time bound programme and the same will be completed within three months. He further submitted that the petitioner has taken step and collected materials for installation of such biometric devices but suddenly the cancellation order was issued on 6.2.2020.

¶8

On perusal of the cancellation order it appears that the authority has cancelled the work order as it is a time bound programme and timely completion of the assignment is top priority. However, the petitioner has only issued some letter seeking some clarification regarding the work instead of giving schedule work and time to complete the same even if two months already passed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the meantime the authority has not taken any decision for fresh tender and he may approach the authority

¶10

¶11

by filing a representation which shall be considered by the authority.

¶12

Mr.Muduli, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is that he has not completed the work within the time bound period for which the tender was cancelled.

¶13

Considering the above submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merits of the case as well as the petitioner has stacked some materials for installment of biometric devices, it is open to the petitioner to approach opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by filing a representation within a period of two weeks from today, in such event the representation of the petitioner shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such representation.

¶14

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

S.Panda,J.

¶16

…..……………… K.R.Mohapatra, J

M Tech Innovations Ltd. v. Commissioner Cum Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Tech Innovations Ltd. v. Commissioner Cum Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarat Chandra Dash Vs State of Odisha

Manoranjan Singha Vs State of Orissa

Jyotshna Rani Jena Vs Registrar (Judicial), Ohc, Ctc

Saxony Holiday Resort Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Collector, Bhadrak

Basant Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Puran Chandra Sahu Vs State of Odisha