p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 11362 of 2025 Ranjan Kumar Rout …. Petitioner Mr. Anjan Kumar Biswal, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. K.T. Mudali, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 & 3 Mr. Upendra Kumar Samal, Senior Advocate Along with Mr. Siba Prasad Patra, Advocate for Intervener CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 04.05.2026 08. 1. The petitioner challenged the decision of the Tendering Authority in rejecting the bids submitted by the petitioner on the basis of a complaint lodged by another bidder after the bid of the petitioner was found in order at the technical bid stage. In other words, the bid of the petitioner was rejected subsequent to the technical bid stage as the petitioner has grossly suppressed the material fact i.e., disclosure of ongoing project/work, which being fatal invites rejection thereof. Page 2 of 7 2. The petitioner challenged the said order on the premise that on the date of submission of the bid, no work was ever allotted to the petitioner; in fact the contract was executed on 6th February, 2025 subsequent to the submission of the bid and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for non-disclosure of the said bid. It was pointed out by the petitioner that the expression „ongoing‟ work must be construed in its literal sense to mean the work which is in the process of execution and not the work which is either anticipatory or allotted subsequent thereto. On the premise of the documents and the submission so advanced, the co-ordinate Bench admitted the writ petition, directed issuance of notice and passed an interim order to the effect that the Tendering Authority may proceed with the tender process but the same shall not be finalized till the next date. The matter thereafter appeared on several occasions but on one pretext or another could not be concluded, yet the interim order passed earlier was extended. 3. On the last occasion, we noticed from the documents uploaded on the official website relating to the tender within the State of Odisha, wherein the contract date was shown as 6th February, 2025 which inculcated an impression that if the contract is executed on a date posterior to the date of submission of the bid, it p. 3 would not invite any penal consequences nor the authority would be justified in rejecting the bid at the technical bid stage on disclosure of the said document. 4. 4. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the contract which was executed by and between the petitioner and the other authority for awarding the work contains the date of the commencement of the said agreement as 24th January, 2025 and it was submitted before us that the agreement was executed on the same day and, therefore, the stand of the petitioner that the agreement was executed on 6th February, 2025 is incorrect and concocted for the purpose of the instant writ petition. We directed the Superintending Engineer to appear before us, who is one of the executants to the said agreement produced before us to appear in person and give an explanation with regard to the discrepancy noticed from various documents annexed to the writ petition and/or produced by the relevant appearing counsel on the basis of the affidavits filed in their behalf. 5. The disparity was evident from the information uploaded on the official website and it is sought to be contended by the said authority before us that in fact he put his signature on 24th January, 2025 and the petitioner also put his signature on the said date and p. 4 mere error having committed in uploading the information on the official website, cannot inure to the benefit of the petitioner nor any credence should be attached to it at the time of deciding the issue raised in the instant writ petition. 6. The sequel of events as narrated hereinabove raises an issue whether the agreement was actually entered into on 24th January, 2025 or 6th February, 2026 and, in the event, the latter date is found to be correct, whether the action of the Tendering Authority in rejecting the bid of the petitioner at the technical bid stage can be justified and/or held to be sustainable in law or in contractual field. 7. We had an occasion to peruse the file concerning the awarding of a contract in relation to the work which has been allotted to the petitioner on the basis of the said agreement. We find that the Office issued a Letter dated 17th January, 2025 to the petitioner indicating that “your offer for the said work is hereby accepted” as per its approval by the Engineer-in-Chief vide his letter No.207 dated 6th January, 2025. 8. The attention of the petitioner was invited to immediately contact the Superintending Engineer, PH Division, Bhanjanagar at Chatrapur for signing an agreement along with the documents p. 5 mentioned therein within seven days from the date of the receipt of the said intimation. Another letter was issued on the next date by the Superintending Engineer reiterating the factum of the acceptance of a bid submitted by the petitioner for the said work and to attend the office within seven days and also to deposit Additional Performance Security Deposit (APSD) and Initial Security Deposit (ISD) amount in terms of the clauses contained in the Tender Call Notice. 9. The petitioner replied to the said Letter on 22nd January, 2025 with regard to the submission of ISD, APSD and drawals of the agreement and submitted the same in the shape of a bank guarantee duly placed in favour of the Superintending Engineer issued by the ICICI Bank, Bhauma Nagar, Unit 4, Bhubaneswar and seek for an acceptance thereof. Even on 24th January, 2025, the petitioner wrote another letter to the Superintending Engineer giving an undertaking that the validity period of the bank guarantee would be extended upto 18th April, 2027 which would be submitted within fortnight from the said date. 10. Apropos the same, the agreement must have been executed on 24th January, 2025, which can further be corroborated by another letter issued by the petitioner on 30th January, 2025 where he wanted p. 6 to make certain amendments in the bank guarantee already submitted and recorded in the agreement itself. 11. The narration of the facts as indicated hereinabove manifestly indicate that the petitioner was aware of the execution of the agreement prior to 3rd February, 2025 and the stand that the agreement was in fact executed on 6th February, 2025 does not appear to stand on the anvil of truth. We do not accept the stand of the petitioner in this regard. If the agreement is executed prior to the date of the submission of the bid and, in the event, the petitioner has not disclosed the ongoing work for which such agreement was already executed at prior time, we do not find any illegality and/or infirmity in the stand of the Tendering Authority in rejecting the bid at the technical bid stage. 12. The suppression and/or non-disclosure of the relevant facts which are imperative in terms of the clauses contained in the tender document invites fatal consequences and a person who grossly suppressed the fact should not be permitted to steal a march over the same but should be dealt with the consequences as provided therein. 13. We do not find the decision of the Tendering Authority in rejecting the bid on the ground of suppression of the said fact to be p. 7 illegal, unsustainable and/or contrary to the terms and conditions of the Tender Call Notice. 14. The instant writ petition, sans merit, the same is, hereby, dismissed. 15. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated. It is open to the Tendering Authority to proceed with the tender in accordance with law. 16. The personal appearance of Mr. Prasanta Kumar Das, Additional Chief Engineer (PH), Bhanjanagar at Chatrapur is dispensed with. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Sisira