p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.13210 of 2026 Pabitra Mohan Ghadei …. Petitioner Mr. Upendra Kumar Samal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. M. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Sanjib Kumar Swain, AGA CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 02.05.2026 02. 1. The bid submitted by the petitioner is rejected at the technical bid stage on the ground of non-submission of the registration copy of the firm and the affidavits, which are filed, are not in proper format. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that clause-5.12 of the tender document is not applicable to the petitioner as the petitioner is a proprietorship concern and the said clause is applicable in the event of the partnership firm or the company participating in the said bid. He further submits that all the affidavits were filed in the format as annexed to the tender document, but the authorities have taken a stand that it is not in such format because the same was affirmed before the Notary Public. 3. Our attention is drawn to the format of affidavit annexed to the tender document, wherefrom we find that the said affidavit may be p. 2 sworn either before the Executive Magistrate or Notary Public and when two alternatives have been provided, recourse to one of such alternative cannot be construed as a defect as pointed out by the authorities. Since the affidavits were filed having sworn before the Notary Public, we do not find any justification on the stand of the authority in holding that the said affidavit is not in a proper format. Taking to plea of registration of a firm is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner is the proprietorship concern and the said Clause-5.12, which postulates that in case the bidder is a firm/company, copy of registration certificate issued by the competent authority as provided under the statute, is to be furnished, has no application in relation to the proprietorship concern. 4. The intention of the tendering authorities can also be manifestly seen from the expression “in case”, which connotes that in the event the bidder is a firm/company, then it has to submit registration certificate issued by the competent authority under the statute and not the proprietorship concern. Once the proprietorship concern is conspicuously absent, the authorities cannot apply such clause to a proprietorship concern, which is restricted to a firm or company. 5. We find that the grounds, on which the bid submitted by the petitioner at the technical bid stage, are not tenable, yet our attention is drawn to the fact that the authorities floated the fresh tender and the next date for submission of the bid is fixed to 7th May, 2026. 6. We can proceed on equitable principles where even though the Court finds that the decision of the authority is not tenable, but in the event the affected person does not suffer the greater prejudice or p. 3 the right is being taken away in absolute terms, the Court may be slow and circumspect in setting aside the entire tender. The tender did not reach to a financial bid stage or in other words, the price quotation has not been disclosed by the authorities. We do not find that there is any apprehension of disclosure of the price by the authorities. Since the prejudice does not appear to have been caused as the petitioner can participate in the fresh tender, we, thus, do not intend to quash and set aside the said fresh tender floated by the authorities. 7. It is open to the petitioner to participate in the said fresh tender after complying the terms and conditions embodied therein. We, however, make it clear that the authorities shall not insist for registration as the clause incorporated in the previous tender appears to be the same in the fresh tender for the reason that the same is restricted to a firm and a company and does not cover a proprietorship concern. 8. With the aforesaid order, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall be disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER