WP(C)/11772/2025 of ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs STATE OF ORISSA on 2 September 2026

ORDER

02.09.2026 Order No.

04.

1. The writ petition was filed assailing the decision of the authority in cancelling the tender with a further consequential relief in the form of a mandamus, directing the authorities to issue the work order and execute the agreement with regard to the construction of R.C.C. trough wall and bed lining from 1650 m to 4000 m of Baghua Distributary with improvement to left Service Bank.

2. The petitioner was adjudged as a successful bidder, and in terms of the tender conditions, he was obligated to deposit the Additional Performance Security within a stipulated time. The petitioner sought for an extension, which appears to have been granted by the authority twice and ultimately the petitioner submitted the same through a term deposit held with the Punjab National Bank and pledged the same with the Superintendent Engineer, Bidyadharpur Canal Division, Bidyadharpur. The authority subsequently found that the tender cannot be proceeded with and, in fact, cancelled the same and remitted the said amount to the credit of the petitioner in his bank account.

3. Despite having received the amount deposited by the petitioner while participating in the tender process, no objection and/or reservation was shown to the authority that the same does not eclipse the right accrued to the petitioner. The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner would corroborate that a certain amount from the said remittance was utilised by the petitioner to repay the hand loan, which he took in this regard.

4. The first and foremost issue involved in the writ petition is as to whether the petitioner can approbate and reprobate at the same time, meaning thereby, after receiving the money and a part utilisation thereof, does not stand in the way of challenging the order of cancellation. The doctrine of acquiescence appears to have applied in the instant case. If a party has acquiesced his right to challenge and accepted the amount without any demur or an objection, he is precluded from challenging the cancellation order subsequent thereto. It is sought to be contended before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to redeposit the same, and the order of cancellation should be quashed, and the work order should be issued in his favour.

5. We are unable to countenance such submission advanced before us, for a simple reason that after the amount was credited to the account of the petitioner, the same was utilised for his personal purpose, and the moment the amount is utilized without raising any objection, the petitioner is precluded from proceeding with the instant writ petition that the order of cancellation is perverse, illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. We, thus, do not find any merit in the instant writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

M. Panda

Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA

Reason:

Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Sep-2026 19:57:02 Signature Not Verified