Tansam Egineering and Construction Company, Rourkela Vs State of Odisha

In the present writ application, the petitioner has put to challenge an order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Chief Engineer (DPI & Roads), Odisha (I/C), whereby the petitioner has been blacklisted with immediate effect in terms of the Works Department Office Memorandum No. 14299/W dated 03.10.2017 on the grounds of non-submission of required initial security deposit and additional performance security and backing out for drawal of agreement after receipt of Letter of Acceptance (LoA).

¶17

The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act and claims to be a super class contractor registered under Public Works Department of the State Government.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State of Odisha, we are of the opinion that this writ application deserves to be disposed of on the short point that the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 is unreasoned and does not reflect any application of mind inasmuch as it does not show any consideration of the show cause reply which was filed by the petitioner. The show cause notice was issued on 20.06.2022 by the Superintending Engineer, Phulbani (R&B) Division, Phulbani in relation to the tender for the work “Widening and Strengthening of Gochhapada-BalandapadaMalikuda-Raod from 0/000 km to 24/000 km in the District of Kandhamal under State Plan for the year 2021-22”. From the said notice it appears that the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the tender awarded in his favour should not be cancelled with recommendation for blacklisting of his license. This was for the reason that in relation to the said tender, a request of the petitioner for allowing 15 days for submission of ISD & APSD was rejected on 07.06.2022. Despite that, the petitioner had requested 8 more days for the said purpose. Apparently, mainly for the reason that after issuance of Letter of Acceptance and time given to the petitioner to complete the formalities of the agreement, he failed to

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

do so, the said show cause notice was issued. The petitioner did submit his reply on 29.11.2022. The matter remained pending thereafter. It is the petitioner’s case that in the meanwhile the petitioner’s portal was blocked on 13.12.2022 by the State Procurement Cell, thus, preventing the petitioner from participating in any tender process. Nearly one and half years after the show cause notice was issued and the petitioner had filed his reply, the impugned order came to be passed on 24.04.2024.

¶22

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner’s reply submitted in response to the show cause notice was received by the competent authority. The said fact is disclosed in the impugned order dated 24.04.2024. On a plain reading of the impugned order, we find that there is absolutely no discussion as to what was the reply of the petitioner in response to the show cause notice and why that deserved to be rejected.

¶23

In our considered opinion, the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 is patently unreasoned and a result of non-application of mind.

¶24

Page 3 of 4

¶25

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.04.2024 being unsustainable is hereby set aside. The competent authority shall however be at liberty to pass an order afresh after due consideration of the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice filed on 29.11.2022. While passing the order afresh, the opposite party shall also keep in mind the petitioner’s case that the petitioner’s portal remained blocked even before passing of the order of blacklisting since 13.12.2022.

¶26

Needless to say that consequence of quashing of the order of blacklisting shall also follow.

¶27

The writ application is accordingly allowed with the observations as noted above.

¶28

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)

¶29

Chief Justice

¶30

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶31

Arun Mishra

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-Cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Nov-2024 11:44:58

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Tansam Egineering and Construction Company, Rourkela v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tansam Egineering and Construction Company, Rourkela v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sibasish Kumar Jena Vs State of Odisha

Dr.J.D.Shree Shoumya Vs State of Odisha

Pankaj Meher Vs J.Sonal, Collector Cum D.M,Boudh

State of Odisha Vs Minarani Mohanty

Punjab National Bank Vs Muktesh Munda

Abeda Bibi Vs Latifa Khatun