Dismissed¶22

S1 Security Services India Private Limited.,Bhubaneswar v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 Apr 2026WP(C)/1600/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tender call notice challenge by existing contractor; manpower services since 2017; Aska Cooperative Sugar Industries Limited; 288 personnel; sugarcane crushing season 2025-26; no vested right in perpetuity; automatic extension impermissible; extension only by mutual agreement; pending renewal/extension application no bar to fresh tender; open, fair and transparent tender; W.P.(C) No.1600 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and M.S. Raman; decided 15.04.2026; writ petition dismissed, no order as to costs; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Once the authority decides to invite a tender which is open, fair and transparent, it does not invite any challenge from the existing manpower service provider. ¶20

S1 Security Services India Private Limited.,Bhubaneswar Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.1600 of 2026

¶3

S1 Security Services India Private …. Petitioner Limited

¶4

Represented by Adv.– Mr. Vivaswat Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus-

¶5

State of Odisha and others

¶6

…. Opposite Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

15.04.2026

The petitioner, who is the existing service provider, has

¶15

filed the instant writ petition challenging the tender call notice dated 26^th December, 2025 issued by the Managing Director, Aska Cooperative Sugar Industries Limited for providing manpower of

¶16

288 personnel during sugarcane crushing season 2025-26.

¶17

It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is providing such manpower since 2017 and, in fact, repeated extension of the contract was made. Subsequently, the authorities decided to float a tender inviting application from the manpower service providing agencies, which is sought to be challenged solely on the ground that once the application for renewal/extension of

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

the contract period is pending before the authority, the authority is precluded from floating any fresh tender.

¶20

We are unable to comprehend such contention of the petitioner for the simple reason that once the authority decided to invite a tender, which is open, fair and transparent, it does not invite any challenge from the existing manpower service provider. Mere execution of a contract does not create any vested right in perpetuity, nor the contracting party can seek for an automatic extension of the period, which can only be done on mutual agreement. Mere making an application for extension/renewal of the contract period cannot create any hindrance to the authorities in floating the tender inviting an application from the intending participants for such services and therefore, the existing contractor does not have any legally enforceable right to challenge the said tender call notice pending decision on extension and/or renewal.

¶21