IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 1299 of 2025 Haresh Das …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Sangram Das, S.C. for Vigilance Department CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 21.11.2025 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court for a direction to the Opposite Party No.6, the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur to register the complaint of the Petitioner dated 22.09.2025 as F.I.R. and to proceed with the proper and expeditious investigation into the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner seeks to raise a grievance regarding the illegalities committed in the tender floated by the CDM & PHO, Bargarh, for outsourcing of housekeeping services at Government Health Institutions. According to Mr. Dalai, the learned counsel in the various bidders participated, but the tender authority did not apply fair means in awarding bid and resorted to corrupt practice. 4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel for the State, Vigilance vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for Petitioner. Mr. Das contended that the application is not maintainable for the simple reason that the Petitioner has no locustandie to challenge the action of the authority he being not a privy to the tender in any manner. However, if at all the Petitioner intends to espouse the cause of the people in general as a law- abiding Citizen to prevent illegality in public affairs may do so by way of a PIL. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions of the respective counsels for the parties and the nature of the complaint, the approach of the Petitioner in bringing an allegation directly before the Vigilance Department and expecting to be taken as FIR does not conform to any law. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not a party to the tender. Nothing has been brought on record showing the nature of illegalities committed by the Authority in awarding the tender. Merely an allegation that illegalities have been committed in awarding the tender without an iota of material cannot ipso fact give rise to a cause of action against the authority. Further, the Petitioner has not justified his indulgence in espousing the cause. Be that as it may, the allegations, if any, need be addressed before the appropriate authority instead seeking an action through court. While disposing the application, without expressing any opinion on merit, it may be observed that the Petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Opposite Party No. 1 for redressal of the grievance justifying his locustandie and If any such representation is made for redressal in the aforesaid matter before, the Oppo.Party No.1 may consider it in accordance with law within a reasonable time. 6. The CRLMP stands disposed of accordingly. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Anisha