Dismissed¶36

Sri Guru Publications, Cuttack v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Oct 2025WP(C)/2312/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OSEPA; Samagra Shiksha; Library Grant; Expression of Interest; Notice Inviting Tender dated 17.08.2023; Age/Class Appropriate Library Books in odia language; supply order; mandamus; execution of agreement; 149 successful participants; arbitrariness; malice; non-publication of selection list; writ dismissed, no costs; Odisha School Education Programme Authority; publisher-tender dispute.

What did the court decide?

Out of 149 successful participants, 148 executed the agreement and complied by supplying the books; the petitioner, the lone excluded participant, neither responded nor came forward to execute the agreement despite communication, hence its contention that the supply order was not served is untenable and it cannot seek such a mandamus. ¶30

Sri Guru Publications, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing the authority to consider its representation and issue a supply order in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 17th August, 2023. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

¶30

Ratio / Principle

All successful participants appeared and executed the agreement except the petitioner, making it inconceivable that the petitioner was singled out due to vengeance or animosity; no case of arbitrariness and/or malice was pleaded in the writ petition.

¶33

Key takeaways

The question of arbitrariness is reasonably ruled out because the petitioner subsequently participated in another Expression of Interest floated by the authority, was adjudged a successful participant, received the supply order in the same manner, executed the agreement and complied with its obligations.ratio¶34
Since supply has already been completed, it is too late to make a further roving inquiry whether the supply order was served upon the petitioner or to test the truthfulness of the stands taken by the parties.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.2312 of 2025) dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa (Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M.S. Raman) on 28.10.2025. The petitioner-publisher sought a direction upon the authorities to consider its representation and issue a supply order in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 17th August, 2023 for supply of Age/Class Appropriate Library Books in odia language under Library Grant, Samagra Shiksha 2023-24. Relying on the counter affidavit of opposite party No.2 (OSEPA), the Court held that the petitioner was among 149 participants found eligible and chosen for supply, that 148 of them executed the requisite agreement and supplied the books, and that the petitioner alone failed to respond or execute the agreement after service of the supply order; the plea of non-service was therefore untenable. The Court further held that no case of arbitrariness or malice was pleaded, that singling out the petitioner was inconceivable, and that the petitioner's subsequent successful participation in another Expression of Interest — where it duly received the supply order, executed the agreement and complied — reasonably ruled out arbitrariness. As supply was already complete, no roving inquiry into service of the order was warranted. Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2312 of 2025

¶3

Sri Guru Publications, Cuttack

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Radharaman Das Nayak, Advocate -Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and another

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S.N. Dash, Advocate for O.P.2-

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

04.

28.10.2025

1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a

¶17

direction upon the authority to consider the representation and also to issue a supply order in terms of the Notice Inviting Tender dated 17^th August, 2023.

¶18

2. Undeniably, the petitioner is the publisher and also supplies the books and participated in the tender issued as Expression of Interest for supply of Age/Class Appropriate Library Books in odia language to the schools of Odisha under Library Grant, Samagra Shiksha for the year 2023-24.

¶19

3. It is averred in the instant writ petition that it is a practice followed by the Odisha School Education Programme Authority (in short “OSEPA”) to select the books by authorized Selection

¶20

Committee and place the order on the successful participants. It is

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

further alleged that no order was ever received nor any communication was made by the OSEPA.

¶23

4. The challenge is primarily founded upon the fact that the website of the OSEPA did not publish the finally submitted list approved by the Selection Committee though the names of disqualified participants were duly published therein.

¶24

5. According to the petitioner, since its name was not included in the list of disqualified participants, it logically follows that he was adjudged as a successful participant but the list of the successful participants were not finally published in the official website.

¶25

6. Considering the aforesaid allegations, the opposite parties were directed to file counter affidavit. The counter affidavit filed by the opposite party No.2 would reveal that the petitioner was found eligible to supply the books and, in fact, the supply order was placed on all the successful participants.

¶26

7. The Committee found 149 participants to be eligible for supply of the books, which includes the petitioner; out of which 148 participants approached the authorities and executed an agreement, which is a pre-condition for making a concluded contract but the petitioner did not respond. The terms and conditions embodied in the Expression of Interest indicates that within ten days from the date of

¶27

Page 2 of 4

¶28

the communication to the successful participant, the agreement was to be executed and the supply was to be completed within sixty days therefrom.

¶29

8. The stand of the said opposite parties is categorical and specific that despite the communication having made, the petitioner neither responded nor came forward to execute the agreement being the requisite conditions enshrined in the said Expression of Interest and, therefore, the allegation that the supply order was not served is untenable.

¶30

9. Considering the stand taken by the respective parties and the fact that out of 149 successful participants, 148 participants executed the agreement and complied with the directions by supplying the books selected by the Selection Committee, the contention of the petitioner, being the lone excluded participant, has not been served with the supply order cannot be accepted. The authorities have admitted in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was one of the successful participants and was chosen to supply the books, but he neither appeared nor responded after the service of the supply order and, therefore, he cannot come forward and seek a mandamus of such nature.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

10. As indicated above, all the successful participants appeared

¶33

and executed the agreement except the petitioner and, therefore, it is inconceivable that the petitioner is singled out either because of the previous vengeance or animosity with the authorities. There is no case of arbitrariness and/or malice pleaded in the writ petition.

¶34

11. Apart from the same, the question of arbitrariness can be reasonably ruled out from the disclosure made in the counter affidavit that subsequently the petitioner participated in another Expression of Interest floated by the authority and was adjudged as a successful participant and upon receiving the supply order in the same manner as was done in the earlier tender, he executed the agreement and complied with the obligations imposed upon it.

¶35

12. Supply has already been completed and it is too late in a day to make a further roving inquiry whether the said supply order was served upon the petitioner or not or to find out the truthfulness of the stands taken by the respective parties.

¶36

13. We, thus, do not find any merit in this writ petition, accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶37

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶38

(M.S. Raman)

¶39

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Judge Signed by: SISIRA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 29-Oct-2025 18:42:26

¶40

Sisira

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Sri Guru Publications, Cuttack v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Guru Publications, Cuttack v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive),Bhubaneswar Vs M/S. Sm Niriyat Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Bhubaneswar Vs Manish Khemka

Commissioner of Customs(Preventive),Bhubaneswar Vs Manish Khemka

Pinakpani Mohanty Vs Union of India

Royal Security Services, Sri Ram Vihar, Bolangir Vs State of Odisha

Swagatika Patel Vs Roopa Roshan Mishra, I.A.S.