Orissa high court bins losing bidder's petition over car rental tender
Cuttack: The Orissa high court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an unsuccessful bidder challenging a vehicle-hiring tender issued by the Soro tehsildar and has also imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner.
The two-judge bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman, in its order passed on Dec 1, said the amount must be deposited with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority (OSLSA) within two weeks for “providing better facilities and amenities to the inmates of Bal Sudhar Griha”. The order was uploaded on Wednesday.
The petitioner, Srimati Sahu, had sought quashing of the tender process initiated through a tender call notice dated Sept 1, 2025, alleging that it was illegal, arbitrary and manipulated. The plea also demanded an independent probe by vigilance or CBI and disciplinary as well as criminal action against the tehsildar and other officials for accepting a “tampered tender” and allegedly shifting the tender-opening dates.
The bench noted that the petitioner had taken part in the tender for providing a BS-VI-compliant SUV on monthly rental for the tehsildar office. While the original bid-opening was scheduled for Sept 9, 2025, it was postponed to Sept 11. The court recorded that “the said date was duly communicated to all the bidders” and the petitioner herself was present on the rescheduled date, “putting her signature” during the opening of the sealed bids.
The judges observed that the scrutiny of documents was conducted in the presence of all bidders and that checklists “were duly signed and ratified by the verifying officer.” The petitioner, they noted, had failed to qualify “because of the incomplete document to the tender call notice.” The tender committee then selected the lowest bidder, with the “entire tender process video-graphed and… preserved for future reference.”
Dismissing claims of favouritism, the court said: “The bidder, who quoted the lowest price, has been declared as L1 (lowest bidder 1) and, therefore, we do not find that there is any nepotism and/or favouritism that has been shown to any of the bidders.”
The bench also remarked that objections were raised only after the petitioner’s bid was rejected. “We perceived in the course of the hearing that the moment the tender submitted by the petitioner is rejected, he raised objections… which does not appear to be corroborated by any cogent evidence,” it said. Calling the petition meritless, the court dismissed it, imposing penalty on the petitioner.
The two-judge bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman, in its order passed on Dec 1, said the amount must be deposited with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority (OSLSA) within two weeks for “providing better facilities and amenities to the inmates of Bal Sudhar Griha”. The order was uploaded on Wednesday.
The petitioner, Srimati Sahu, had sought quashing of the tender process initiated through a tender call notice dated Sept 1, 2025, alleging that it was illegal, arbitrary and manipulated. The plea also demanded an independent probe by vigilance or CBI and disciplinary as well as criminal action against the tehsildar and other officials for accepting a “tampered tender” and allegedly shifting the tender-opening dates.
The bench noted that the petitioner had taken part in the tender for providing a BS-VI-compliant SUV on monthly rental for the tehsildar office. While the original bid-opening was scheduled for Sept 9, 2025, it was postponed to Sept 11. The court recorded that “the said date was duly communicated to all the bidders” and the petitioner herself was present on the rescheduled date, “putting her signature” during the opening of the sealed bids.
The judges observed that the scrutiny of documents was conducted in the presence of all bidders and that checklists “were duly signed and ratified by the verifying officer.” The petitioner, they noted, had failed to qualify “because of the incomplete document to the tender call notice.” The tender committee then selected the lowest bidder, with the “entire tender process video-graphed and… preserved for future reference.”
Dismissing claims of favouritism, the court said: “The bidder, who quoted the lowest price, has been declared as L1 (lowest bidder 1) and, therefore, we do not find that there is any nepotism and/or favouritism that has been shown to any of the bidders.”
The bench also remarked that objections were raised only after the petitioner’s bid was rejected. “We perceived in the course of the hearing that the moment the tender submitted by the petitioner is rejected, he raised objections… which does not appear to be corroborated by any cogent evidence,” it said. Calling the petition meritless, the court dismissed it, imposing penalty on the petitioner.
Next Story