WP(C)/26684/2026 of DEBARANJAN TRIPATHY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 2 September 2026

ORDER

02.09.2026

01.

1. Heard learned counsel for both the Parties.

2. The writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking relief in the form of a mandamus and certiorari to quash the work order dated 23.07.2026 issued to the opposite party no.4, being the lowest bidder, and to award the tender work to the petitioner, who is admittedly the second lowest bidder.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the first lowest bidder did not submit the Additional Performance Security (APS) in the manner as provided in the tender document within seven (07) days from the date of the issuance of the Letter of Acceptance (LoA) and, therefore, the authorities could not extend the time of his own. It is submitted that if the power to extend the time is not stipulated in the tender conditions, the authorities cannot use such power dehors the same.

4. It is further contended that the authorities have extended the period for completion of the work, indicating the date of commencement to be 23rd July, 2026, and the completion within 22nd July, 2027, dehors the tender conditions. Our attention is drawn to Clause-15 of the tender document with regard to the submission of the Additional Performance Security (APS) in the shape of a National Savings Certificate/ Post Office Savings Bank Account/ Post Office Time Deposit Account/ Kishan Vikash Patra/ Deposit Receipt of any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, duly pledged in favour of the Executive Engineer, Tel Irrigation Division, Sonepur, within seven

(07) days of issuance of the Letter of Acceptance (LoA). Though the timeline has given in the said Clause with the consequences to follow, we have no doubt in our mind that in the event such compliance is not made, the consequences would ordinarily follow, and in absence of any power vested upon the tendering authority to extend the said period, it would not be proper on the part of the authority to use such power not provided in the tender conditions.

5. Though, a bold statement of such nature is made in the writ petition, but it does not appear from a document so annexed that the said L1 bidder did not submit the Additional Performance Security (APS) in such form as provided therein within the time so stipulated.

6. The letter suggests that the annual bidder was called upon by the authorities to appear for execution of an agreement, which found place in Clause-16 of the said tender document. There is no timeline provided for the execution of the said agreement, except that if the lowest bidder does not turn up for agreement after finalization of the tender, he shall be debarred from participation in bidding for three

(03) years, and action shall also be taken to blacklist the said contractor as per the codal provisions in Annexure-II of the Amendment to Paragraph-3.4.14, Note-I of OPWD Code, Vol-1.

7. In the event, the condition does not stipulate the timeline within which the agreement has to be executed, we do not find any fetter on the part of the tendering authority in permitting the L1 bidder to attend for the purpose of the execution of the agreement beyond seven (07) days.

8. A litigant shall not be permitted to incorporate something into the conditions which is conspicuously absent therein. The timeline within which the Additional Performance Security (APS) is required to be furnished is provided in the tender condition, but there is no time limit provided in Clause-16 of the said tender conditions, and therefore, it is preposterous to suggest that the timeline fixed for a particular thing should also be read within the other Clause appearing in the tender document. Since the agreement has already been executed with the L1 bidder, but the work could not be commenced because of the rainy season. As the nature of the work is relatable to a Flood Protection Embankment on Bhandar burial ground to Agni Patra farm house, left side bank of Choukijore nallah, from RD 00

m. to RD 385 m. Apart from the same, it is contended by the petitioner that a representation was made to the authority, flagging such issues, but the same is simply been kept in abeyance, as no decision has been taken thereupon; at least not communicated to the petitioner.

9. The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) raises a serious issue on submission of such representation by the petitioner to the authority. According to her, no such representation was ever submitted to the authority nor Annexure-7 (representation) reflects any receipt in this regard.

10. We also find from the perusal of the said Annexure that there is no receipt appended thereto and the moment this authorities have taken a stand that no such representation was received by them in absence of any counter corroborative evidence, it would be presumed that the same was not submitted to the authorities, and therefore, a formal direction upon the authorities to consider the said representation is unwarranted.

11. We, thus, do not find any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

AK Pradhan/Priyanka Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYANKA BARIK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 03-Sep-2026 18:00:22 Signature Not Verified