WP(C)/11694/2026 of M/S ALLIN SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (ASIS), BHUBANESWAR Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 22 May 2026

ORDER

22.05.2026

01.

1. The challenge is made to the tender notice No.3785 dated 24th March, 2026 on the premise that the petitioner was awarded the service contract, but was prevented to deploy manpower because of the intervention of a model code of conduct and, therefore, unless said period of one month is granted, the authority cannot float the tender.

2. We are unable to countenance the stand taken by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. It is undisputed that after completion of the tender process, the petitioner was awarded a contract and a letter of appointing and/or deployment of adequate manpower was also issued to the competent authority for its concurrence and/or approval. In the interregnum, the model code of conduct becomes applicable because of the election having declared and the Deputy Director (CA) issued a letter on 10th May, 2024 to the petitioner that the joining letter issued by him shall be kept in abeyance. After the model code of conduct got lifted on completion of the election process, immediately a letter was caused by the said authority on 10th June, 2024 communicating that the model code of conduct having been lifted, there is no impediment on the part of the petitioner to deploy the candidates as listed earlier in the respective offices as soon as possible.

3. Since the initial tenure of the contract was one year, but the authorities could not proceed to undertake a further exercise and the deployment of manpower and services to be availed, the authority consciously decided to extend and/or renew the agreement and/or contract for another period of one year i.e. from 6th March, 2025 to

5th March, 2026, which would be evident and apparent from the letter dated 28th March, 2025 issued by the Joint Director (CA) of Steel and Mines Department, Government of Odisha. After the tenure so extended expires, the steps for floating a new tender was taken by the authority, which is sought to be challenged on the premise indicated in the first paragraph of the instant order.

4. There is no justification in the stand of the petitioner to seek an extension of one month where the model code of conduct was operative after accepting and implementing the period of extension and/or renewal issued subsequent thereto. A distinction must be drawn between “the extension and renewal” as in former case, it is an elongation, prolongation and/or stretching further the original period whereas in a later case, it is a fresh ground which is given as the word ‘re’ means again and ‘newal’ means fresh (See Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another, AIR 1989 SC 1834).

5. Once the petitioner without any demur and/or objection accepted the extension of period which would mean the prolongation and stretching further the original period, he cannot take a rebound after having derived benefit from the extended period that initially he was prevented from deployment of the manpower for a period of one month because of an intervening model code of conduct. The petitioner has waived and acquiesced his right to claim benefit of the said one month and enjoyed the usufructus of the extended period and, therefore, cannot wriggle out from the purview thereof. It further reveals from the record that even after the expiration of the extended period, the petitioner was permitted to work for another period of one month and, therefore, cannot seek for cancellation of a fresh tender.

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

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

S.K. Guin/PA Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-May-2026 12:25:18 Signature Not Verified