M/S Society for Environmental Protection and Human Resources Development, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-Apr-2025 13:23:01

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C). NO.8449 OF 2025

¶4

M/s. Society For Environmental …. Petitioner Protection and Human Resources Development

¶5

Mr. Susanta Kumar Dash, Senior Advocate being assisted by Ms. Adyasha Kar, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties

¶9

Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Order No.

ORDER 02.04.2025

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

The grievance of the Petitioner is with regard to nonconsideration of its complaint dated 7^th March, 2025 (Annexure-7) by the Tender Inviting Authority before opening of the financial bid.

¶17

Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the Request For Proposal(RFP) (Second Revision) (Annexure-2) issued by the Chief District Medical and Public Health Officer-cum-DMO, Opposite Party No.2 for housekeeping services at Government Health Institutions, the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.6, namely, M/s. Bharat Security Services along with others submitted their tender documents. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.6 submitted fake experience certificate for providing mechanized housing keeping and cleaning services at Balasore-Bhadrak Central Cooperative Bank-Opposite Party No.5 along with tender document. Although the complaint

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-Apr-2025 13:23:01

¶21

under Annexure-7 was submitted by the Petitioner alleging the same prior to opening of the financial bid with a request to consider the complaint of the Petitioner, but ignoring the same, the Tender Inviting Authority proceeded to open the financial bid. Referring to Section 5, i.e., Criteria for Evaluation, Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate submits that the bidders were required to furnish certificate of experience of managing housing keeping service in the Government hospitals/Government institutions, Government Undertakings/ Government Corporation/ Banks/ private bedded hospitals for the Financial Years 2021 to 2022, 2022 to 2023, 2023 to 2024 under Form-‘T4C’ and criteria for awarding remarks in consonance with experience was also provided therein with a maximum of 15 marks.

¶22

It is submitted by Mr. Dash, learned Senior Advocate that basing upon the false Experience Certificate, the Opposite Party No.6 was awarded 15 marks in the technical evaluation. The Opposite Party No.6 secured 80 marks, whereas the Petitioner secured 70 marks in total in the technical evaluation. Had the complaint of the Petitioner been considered before opening of the financial bid, then the Opposite Party No.6 could not have been adjudged as L1.

¶23

It is further submitted that the Petitioner had made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Balasore-Bhadrak Central Corporative Bank to provide information regarding work experience of the Opposite Party No.6. But, it was refused on the ground that the Cooperative Banks are not covered under the provisions of the said Act. Thus, finding no other alternative, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶24

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, submits that the entire writ petition is based on surmises

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 03-Apr-2025 13:23:01

¶27

and conjectures. There is no material on record with regard to the source from which the Petitioner came to know that Opposite Party No.6 had submitted a fake certificate and he has been awarded 15 marks on the basis of such experience certificate. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court does not find any material in support of the case of the Petitioner to come to a conclusion with regard to the veracity of grievance/allegation made by the Petitioner. However, it appears from Clause-4.12 of the Request For Proposal (RFP) that a Committee has been constituted for settlement of disputes. Although, the provisions under Clause4.12 is not clear with regard to its scope, but, this Court considering that a Committee has been constituted at the District Level for settlement of dispute, directs that the grievance under Annexure-7 made by the Petitioner should be placed before the Committee and a decision taken thereon shall be communicated to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order to the Opposite Party No.2. The Petitioner is directed to cooperate with the Committee for taking a decision on its complaint.

¶29

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶30

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶31

(S.K.Mishra) Judge

¶32

Rojalin

¶33

Page 3 of 3

M/S Society for Environmental Protection and Human Resources Development, Bbsr v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Society for Environmental Protection and Human Resources Development, Bbsr 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

Bhakta Charan Parida Vs Reserve Bank of India, Bbsr

Sanjib Kumar Pradhan Vs Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank

Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd., Vs Dist.Magistrate Cum Collector ,Khordha

Piyush Gupta Vs Bhubaneswar Development Authority, Bbsr

Pradeep Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Iswar Sahu Vs Utkal Grameen Bank, Bargarh