Dismissed¶10

Prakash Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Jan 2026WP(C)/35435/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi of non-participating and non-eligible bidder to challenge tender; interpretation of DTCN clause 2.5 (one proposal per bidder) and clause 2.6 (180-day validity of proposal); no automatic lapse or cancellation of tender if not finalised within 180 days of bid opening; rejection as non-responsive confined to proposals of shorter validity; busybody/warfarer/publicity-seeker litigation barred from Article 226 recourse; security services tender of Rourkela Government Hospital; writ petition dismissed; Odisha; 2026.

What did the court decide?

Clauses 2.5 and 2.6 of the DTCN, read together, do not imply that a bid/proposal lapses automatically on expiry of 180 days from the date of bid opening; non-finalisation within that period does not ipso facto invite cancellation of the tender, the 180-day window serving only to hedge price escalation.

Prakash Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether a bidder who neither participated in nor was eligible for the tender has the locus standi to maintain a writ petition challenging the DTCN. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

A non-participating bidder, whose grievance revolves solely around interpretation of clauses 2.5 and 2.6 of the DTCN — the writ petition being neither a Public Interest Litigation nor a challenge alleging arbitrariness, nepotism or tailoring affecting the public at large — has no relation to those clauses and is not entitled to maintain the writ petition.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

¶6

Key takeaways

The consequence prescribed in clause 2.6 — rejection as non-responsive — applies only to a proposal valid for a period shorter than 180 days and cannot be applied to a proposal submitted for the full 180 days.ratio¶6
The Court finds no substance in the petitioner's interpretation of clauses 2.5 and 2.6 of the DTCN as attracting a penal provision leading to cancellation of the bid where the tender is not finalised within 180 days of the opening of the bid.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, WP(C) No.35435 of 2025 (Harish Tandon, CJ and Murahari Sri Raman, J.), order dated 19.01.2026: Writ petition by Prakash Kumar Naik — who admittedly neither participated in nor was eligible for the tender floated by the Director, Rourkela Government Hospital, Raghunathpalli for security services — assailing the authorities' failure to complete the process in terms of clause 2.6 of the Detailed Tender Call Notices (proposal to remain valid 180 days after bid opening), DISMISSED. Held: (i) clauses 2.5 and 2.6 of the DTCN do not cause automatic lapse of a bid/proposal on expiry of 180 days from bid opening, nor ipso facto cancellation of the tender for non-finalisation within that period; the sanction of rejection as 'non-responsive' attaches only to proposals valid for a shorter period; (ii) a non-participating bidder, whose dispute turns solely on interpretation of the DTCN clauses and whose petition is neither a PIL nor an arbitrariness challenge affecting the public at large, has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition; (iii) busybodies should not be permitted recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.35435 of 2025

¶2

Prakash Kumar Naik

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Sushanta Kumar Joshi, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶10

AND

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶12

Order No.

¶13

ORDER 19.01.2026

¶14

1. The petitioner, who admittedly did not participate in the tender process, has filed the instant writ petition assailing the action of the authorities in not completing the entire process in terms of clause2.6 of the Detailed Tender Call Notices (DTCN).

¶15

The tender was floated by the Director, Rourkela Government Hospital, Raghunathpalli for appointing an Agency to undertake the security services at the Government Health Institutions. The first section of the DTCN postulates that the tender document would be available to the intending bidder on and from 25^th April, 2025 till 17^th May, 2025 and the pre-bid meeting was to be held on 5^th May, 2025 in the Conference Hall at the Administrative Wing of the Rourkela Government Hospital. The last date for submission of the bid was fixed on 17^th May, 2025 and the date for opening the technical bid and the financial bid was scheduled to 19^th May, 2025. 3. As indicated hereinabove, the petitioner is neither eligible to participate in the said DTCN nor in fact participated therein, yet he is challenging the action of the authorities taking an aid of clause-

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

2.6 of the DTCN, which provides that the proposal shall remain valid for 180 days after the date of the bid opening and, therefore, any proposal, which is valid for shorter period shall be rejected as non-responsive. According to the petitioner, though the tender was opened on 19^th May, 2025, the authorities sat over it and did not disclose the outcome thereof. A detailed application is submitted on 25^th October, 2025 seeking cancellation of the said DTCN by the petitioner, which is kept in suspended amination by the authorities as no conscious decision was taken thereupon. Though the innocuous prayer is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once he has approached the authority for certain directions/reliefs, it is an ardent duty of the said authorities to take a conscious decision thereupon and should not keep it in abeyance for all times to come. But, we do not feel that the manner in which the petitioner has perceived the clauses mentioned in the said DTCN is legally justified and above all, a person who did not participate in the tender process can assail the action of the authorities taking a shelter under violation of the terms and conditions embodied in the DTCN.

¶18

Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid point, it would be profitable to adumbrate clauses-2.5 and 2.6 of the said DTCN, which runs thus:-

¶19

“2.5. Number of proposals

¶20

Interested bidders fulfilling the eligibility criteria may submit their proposal at the District Institution for which they want to bid. A bidder is eligible to submit only one proposal for the District/Institution, for which the bidder is submitting its bid.

¶21

2.6. Validity of Proposals

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

The Proposal shall remain valid for 180 days after the date of bid opening. Any Proposal, which is valid for a shorter period, shall be rejected as non-responsive.”

¶24

On the meaningful reading of the aforementioned clauses, it is manifest that the interested bidders, who fulfilled all the eligibility criteria, were permitted to submit their proposal with the rider that one proposal shall be received from a bidder eradicating the multiple bids to be submitted by same person. It further postulates that such proposal would remain valid for 180 days to be reckoned from the date of opening of the bid with the contingency that any bid containing such shorter period shall be rejected as nonresponsive.

¶25

Bare reading of both the provisions does not percolate a sense that any bid/proposal would lapse automatically after expiration of 180 days from the date of the opening of the bid. What can be reasonably gathered from the reading of the aforementioned two clauses that the offer/proposal submitted by the bidder would be treated to be valid for a period of 180 days and, therefore, it does not ipso facto invite the cancellation of the tender in the event the authorities did not take a final decision within such mischief period. The proposal which contains important and significant aspect of the bid, i.e., the financial one, is amenable to be enhanced and/or increased by a passage of time and in order to hedge the said price, the 180 days period is provided without any consequences to follow. The consequence, which is provided therein, is in relation to a proposal falling short of 180 days and cannot be stretched to a proposal which is in conformity with the aforementioned clauses. Any other inference would be opposed to the intention of the

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

authorities and would also render the expressions “Any proposal which is valid for a shorter period, shall be rejected as nonresponsive”. It is only such bid/proposal which is short of 180 days, shall be treated to be rejected as non-responsive, which cannot be applied in case of a proposal submitted by the bidder for 180 days. 7. We, thus, do not find any substance in the submission of the petitioner in interpreting clauses-2.5 and 2.6 of the DTCN as the penal provision is attracted leading to the cancellation of a bid in the event the tender is not finalized within 180 days from the date of the opening of the bid.

¶28

There is another aspect, which we cannot overlook as it strikes at the root of the locus of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition challenging the DTCN being a non-participating bidder. The writ petition is not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation nor is sought to be challenged on the premise that the terms and conditions embodied therein not only affect the public at large but smack of arbitrariness, nepotism and tailored to favour the blueeyed persons in securing the public contract. The entire gamut of dispute revolves around interpretation of clauses-2.5 and 2.6, to which we feel that the petitioner cannot be said to be a person having any relation thereto and, therefore, is not entitled to maintain the instant writ petition.

¶29

A busybody should not be permitted to take a recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court should ponder upon such litigation as the warfarer, the busybody and a person interested in the publicity should not be allowed to avail such opportunity. It is a fit case where this Court has no option but to dismiss the writ petition.

¶30

Page 4 of 5

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶32

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶33

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶34

MRS/Laxmikant

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Jan-2026 12:19:23

¶37

Page 5 of 5

Prakash Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Kumar Naik v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanakalata Senapati Vs the Assistant Commissioner, GST and Central Excise Bbsr- II Division

Alok Ranjan Panda Vs State of Odisha

M/S Das Integrated System, Cuttack Vs the Chief Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Goods and Services Tax, Cuttack

Alok Ranjan Panda Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Kumar Jalan Vs State of Odisha

M/S Kumar Biswal Vs Additional State Tax Officer, Angul