p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.3965 of 2026 Manoranjan Sahoo …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Bhabani Shankar Tripathy, Senior Advocate Mr. Atul Tripathy, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Ms. Aishwarya Dash, A.S.C. for the State CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 11.03.2026 01. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the unilateral rejection at the technical bid without giving any opportunity of hearing. It is further stated that even no notice or communication has been made to the petitioner that his bid has been rejected on a technical ground, but the petitioner has received an information from the reliable source that the authorities have not allowed the petitioner to participate in the financial bid stage. p. 2 2. The instant writ petition is solely premised on the basis of oral information received by the petitioner without any corroborating document in this regard. However, we invited the attention of the learned Additional Government Advocate on the allegation so made in the instant writ petition. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- opposite parties submits on instructions received in writing that in fact the petitioner’s bid was not rejected at the technical bid stage, but was considered at the financial bid stage. However, at the time of considering the price so offered, it was detected that the value of the EMD is not in commensurate with the Rules applicable in this regard. There appears to be a shortage of calculating the EMD value and for such reason, his bid has been rejected at the financial bid stage. 4. Since the entire cause of action pleaded in the instant writ petition pertains to the rejection of the bid at the technical bid stage which does not appear to be factually correct as the petitioner was permitted to participate at the financial bid stage. Since the Rule provides the EMD to be calculated on the basis of the price so quoted and it appears that the petitioner has quoted the EMD which is well short of the requisite value, we, thus, do not found any infirmity in p. 3 the decision of the authority in rejecting the bid at the financial bid stage. 5. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Guin/PA