Orissa High Court

WP(C)/18253/2026 of MANOJ KUMAR SAHOO Vs ODISHA LIFT IRRIGATION CORPORATION, BHUBANESWAR on 23 July 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18253 of 2026 Manoj Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, Advocate -Versus- Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation and others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Ashok Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.18253 of 2026

Manoj Kumar Sahoo

….

Petitioner

Represented by Adv.–

Mr. Hrudananda Mohapatra, Advocate

-Versus-

Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation

and others

….

Opposite Parties

Represented by Adv.–

Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Order No.

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

ORDER

23.07.2026

02.

1. Despite the petitioner being adjudged as the lowest bidder and was duly communicated of the same, yet the authority, who floated the notice for hiring of the vehicle, awarded the hiring contract to the second lowest bidder.

2. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition annexing all the requisite documents which would evince that the vehicle which the petitioner intended to put on hire, had complied with all the requisite licences and/or permissions in this regard. According to the petitioner, the new vehicle was purchased prior to the date of participation in the said process and all the requisite formalities as required in terms of the quotation call notice were fulfilled, yet in order to favour a person, the petitioner is deprived of the privilege of getting the hiring contract in his favour.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to the invoice relating to the purchase of a vehicle and also the registration certificate, the insurance certificate and all other permits, which are required for the purpose of commercial use of the said vehicle.

4. On the last date, we thought that the presence of the Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation is necessary and directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the petition upon Mr. Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned counsel who normally appears for the said Corporation. Pursuant to the said direction, Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel appears and files Vakalatnama which is taken on record.

5. According to Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties-Corporation, the quotation call notice dated 7th April 2026 contains a specific terms and conditions relating to the condition of the vehicle which should be a roadworthy condition, newly hiring from the date of initial registration and should have a registration certificate, insurance certificate, fitness certificate, valid contract carriage permit and the payment of up to date tax leviable therefrom for plying the said vehicle. He has taken us to the documents annexed to the writ petition in support of his contention that as on the last date submission of the quotation i.e. 15th April, 2026 by 2PM, some of the documents are issued subsequent thereto. According to him, the carriage permit, which the petitioner relies is valid from 16th April, 2026 to 15th April, 2031 and the date of registration is also subsequent to the last date of submission of the quotation. Other document i.e. the insurance was also issued to the petitioner to operate subsequent to the said date and time and, therefore, the petitioner was denied of the contract to be awarded to him.

6. We have meticulously gone into the terms and conditions embodied in the said quotation call notice for hiring of the vehicle dated 7th April, 2026, more particularly, clause 3 thereof which mandates the newly hiring vehicle to be in a roadworthy condition and must have all the valid certificates and/or the permits required for the plying of the vehicle. Though the last date of the quotation was fixed on 15th April, 2026 upto 2PM, but it does not contain any conditions that the requisite documents are to be furnished and/or annexed along with the quotation. The tenet of clause 3 indicates that the car must have all the requisite certificates and permits for the purpose of plying meaning thereby when it is put in use and not on the day of the submission of the quotation by the intending participants.

7. It would be preposterous to suggest that the person, who has undertaken to provide the car in a roadworthy condition, must possess all such certificates as on the date. What is intended therefrom that while the said vehicle is actually put in use in the said Department, it must possess all such certificates and/or permits and in the event, it is not shown, the authority is within its competence to take its decision. Had there been a mandatory condition to annex all such certificates and/or permits along with the offer having made in terms of the said quotation for notice, the terms and conditions embodied therein would have been worded differently.

8. It is a simplicitor call notice inviting the intending service provider to quote the price and place the vehicle which meets the requirements envisaged under clause 3 thereof. Had those conditions been mandatory, there was no occasion on the part of the authorities to issue a letter to the petitioner declaring him as the lowest bidder and called upon him to produce the vehicle for physical verification at the office of the undersigned on 16th April, 2026 between 12 noon to 2PM. It is a specific case of the petitioner that because of an illness, he could not produce the vehicle on the said date, but later on i.e. 17th April, 2026 produced the said vehicle which was duly verified by the authorities. The medical document is also annexed to the writ petition.

9. Once the physical verification is done on 17th April, 2026, it is not appropriate on the part of the authority to award the contract to the second lowest bidder. Had it been a case that the petitioner failed to produce the vehicle on the date so fixed and then the offer is rejected, the position would have been different, but once the time for verification is extended, it falls on its own footing that the petitioner did not have the requisite certificate as on the date of the submission of his offer.

10. We find that the impugned decision of the authority fails to pass the muster of reasonability and the rationality; the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to pass appropriate direction for engagement of the vehicle offered by the petitioner with immediate effect subject to verification of the certificates and the permits so relied upon by the petitioner.

11. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

S.K. Guin/PA Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Jul-2026 19:03:31 Signature Not Verified

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead