Vacron Technology Private Ltd., Bbsr Vs Supdt. Engineer, Balasore

the successful bidder, namely, OMM Engineering on the premise that he has been wrongfully and/or illegally shown to have complied all the conditions of the Detailed Tender Call Notice (DTCN) at the technical bid stage, whereas the bid of the petitioner was rejected as some of the documents annexed thereto did not contain the digital signatures.

¶17

2. There is no quarrel on the factual aspect that in the event,

¶18

the authorities found the bid submitted by the intending bidders to be

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

not in conformity with the terms and conditions thereof, such bid is liable to be cancelled or may be invalidated at the technical stage.

¶21

3. At the time of hearing, the attention was drawn to the document containing the list of the intending bidders and the rejection of the respective bids on the ground assigned therein. It was highlighted before us that some of the bidders whose bids were declared as valid, in fact, did not submit the No Relationship Certificate which is one of the essential conditions to qualify at the stage of technical bid.

¶22

4. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court rendered in case of Upendra Jena v. State of Odisha, reported in AIR 2019 Ori 149 , wherein it has been held that the relationship certificate in negative form has to be submitted along with the bid documents and any infraction and/or non-adherence thereof would entail such bid liable to be declared invalid as such condition is mandatory in nature.

¶23

5. We invited the attention of the State counsel to respond to such stand taken by the petitioner which in fact has been done before us. Though we could have called the State to file an affidavit but

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

after noticing the documents and the averments made in the report submitted today, it would simply delay the disposal of the writ petition. We are conscious of the procedural law that the documents are required to be taken on record if disclosed in the pleading. We departed from the same in order to put quietus to the issue by taking them on record as undisputed to avoid delay in disposal of the case.

¶26

6. Since the solitary point involved in the instant writ petition is relatable to the submission of the relation certificate, we, therefore, restricted our determination on the above issue. It is revealed from the bunch of documents produced before us that three bidders quoted the equal rate and in view of a tie, the lottery was conducted on 2^nd April, 2025, wherein 'OMM Engineering' emerged as a successful bidder.

¶27

7. It is further indicated that all the bidders who have qualified in the technical bid submitted their relationship certificates, the copies of the affidavits are also annexed in the said bunch of documents. There is no hesitation in our mind that if the relationship certificate which is mandatory in nature is submitted, there is no point in arriving at the conclusion that the bid is liable to be rejected

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

having not in conformity with the terms and conditions of the DTCN.

¶30

8. Interestingly, a departure is made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner at the time of argument after noticing the aforementioned facts in contending that the point still boils down to the extent whether those documents were submitted at the time of offering the candidature through online mode. It is submitted that those certificates might have been submitted in a physical form which is not in conformity with the terms and conditions embodied in the said DTCN.

¶31

9. We are not impressed with the aforesaid submissions for the reason that a litigant cannot improve and/or prevaricate the stand at different stages of the case. On the last occasion, the entire gamut of the dispute was squeezed to one point whether the successful bidder submitted the relationship certificate and the moment this Court finds that such certificate forms an integral part of the bid documents, it should not encourage the litigations nor should permit the litigant to improve his case the moment he finds that the point which was taken earlier cannot be sustained on factual matrix.

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

10. We are informed that after the declaration of the successful bidder, the work order was issued and the same has also been complete in all respects.

¶34

11. In view of such facts disclosed in course of hearing, we do not find that there is any merit in the instant writ petition warranting interference by this Court.

¶35

12. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶36

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge

S. Behera

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMANTA BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 12-Aug-2025 11:44:11

¶42

Page 5 of 5

Vacron Technology Private Ltd., Bbsr v. Supdt. Engineer, Balasore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vacron Technology Private Ltd., Bbsr v. Supdt. Engineer, Balasore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhransu Sekhar Debnath Vs State Level Scrutiny Committee, Cuttack

Sukantilata Das Vs State of Odisha

Paka Sahoo Vs Sombari Sahoo

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),Bhubaneswar Vs M/S Disha Realcon Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar Vs Ajay Gupta, E/O Manish Khemka,Director, M/S Disha Realcon Pvt. Ltd.

Samir Kundu Vs National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi