The Orissa High Court has firmly dismissed a writ petition filed by an unsuccessful bidder who challenged a vehicle-hiring tender process initiated by the Soro tehsildar. The court not only rejected the plea but also imposed a significant cost of Rs 25,000 on the petitioner for bringing a meritless case.
Court Order and Penalty Details
A two-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman passed this order on December 1. The ruling was officially uploaded on the court's website this Wednesday. The bench directed that the penalty amount of Rs 25,000 must be deposited with the Odisha State Legal Services Authority (OSLSA) within a period of two weeks. The fine is intended to be used for "providing better facilities and amenities to the inmates of Bal Sudhar Griha."
Petitioner's Allegations and Tender Process
The petitioner, Srimati Sahu, had sought the quashing of the tender process initiated through a notice dated September 1, 2025. Sahu alleged that the process was illegal, arbitrary, and manipulated. The plea demanded an independent probe by vigilance or the CBI, along with disciplinary and criminal action against the tehsildar and other officials for allegedly accepting a "tampered tender" and shifting the tender-opening dates.
The tender in question was for hiring a BS-VI-compliant SUV on a monthly rental basis for the Soro tehsildar office. While the original bid-opening was set for September 9, 2025, it was postponed to September 11. The court record states that this change was duly communicated to all bidders, and the petitioner herself was present on the rescheduled date, even putting her signature during the opening of the sealed bids.
Court's Observations and Rationale for Dismissal
The bench meticulously examined the process and found no wrongdoing. 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 court noted that the petitioner failed to qualify "because of the incomplete document to the tender call notice."
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the entire tender process was video-graphed and preserved for future reference. The tender committee selected the lowest bidder (L1). Dismissing claims of favoritism, the bench stated, "The bidder, who quoted the lowest price, has been declared as L1 and, therefore, we do not find that there is any nepotism and/or favouritism that has been shown to any of the bidders."
The court also made a critical observation about the timing of the petitioner's objections, remarking that they were raised only after her bid was rejected. The bench said, "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." Ultimately, labeling the petition as without merit, the court dismissed it with the imposed penalty.
