WP(C)/32453/2025 of BLUE CIRCLE INSTRUMENTS Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 15 May 2026

ORDER

15.05.2026

01.

1. The petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in data digitization, scanning and allied IT enabled services for over a decade and a Tier-I empanelled vendor under the Odisha Computer Application Centre (OCAC) having experience in executing e-Governance projects since 2009, has challenged Request for Proposal inviting bids from local Scanning and Data Digitization firms or agencies (Bidders) for the empanelment of agencies for Scanning and Data Digitization vide Annexure-3.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since such bids as invited excludes proprietorship concern from participating in the bid, the petitioner has made representations dated 26th June, 2025 and 18th July, 2025 vide Annexure-6 before the authority of the Odisha Computer Application Centre (OCAC), which are stated to be pending till date. It is argued that Request for Proposal as floated by the OCAC having discriminated participation of the proprietorship concern in the bid, falls foul of principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party nos.1 & 2 drew attention of this Court to the decision rendered by this Court in U-Tech Service, Puri Vs. State of Odisha, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Bhubaneswar and another, WP(C) No.13142 of 2026 disposed of vide judgment dated 6th May, 2026 wherein it has been observed as follows: “8. The person who runs the agency of supplying the manpower constitute a homogenous class and any classification within the homogenous class without any intelligible differentia offends the core fabric of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. We are conscious that the classification within the class is permissible provided it has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved and not when the persons of the said homogenous class is eliminated without any rational and/or reasonableness in the object for which such tender was floated.

9. Eliminating a person, being an integral part of the said homogenous class, by creating an unreasonable and irrational classification is to be eschewed as it is opposed to not only the equality principles but also suffers from vice of arbitrariness. The elimination of a person from a homogenous class without any reasonable objective cannot be said to be within the competence of Tendering Authority nor such decision gets immunity from interference by the writ Court.

10. We are unable to countenance the submission of Ms. Biswabara Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel that the Court recognizes the freedom of incorporation of the clause in the tender and if such clause is put, it is insulated from being scuttled by any judicial interference. If the clause appears to be against the constitutional provisions or violates any fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution of India, the writ Court should step in and pierce such insulation having put and declare such clause to be unconstitutional.

11. In the event the stand taken by the Government is accepted as aforesaid, every action of the Government be it violative of the statutory right or the constitutional provisions, is not susceptible to be interfered with and a situation may arise that in the garb of a freedom to contract, the Constitutional right would remain a dead letter.

12. The fundamental rights are inviolable nor can be tinkered with and if the Court finds that a Government or a semi- Government or the authority, as the case may be, violates such fundamental rights of a citizen, such action is always regarded as tainted and warrants immediate interference by the writ Court.

13. We do not find any reasonability in excluding the proprietorship concern when the partnership firm, company, society and trust are included within sub- clause (I) of Clause 2.2 of the RFP. The elimination of a proprietorship concern from participating in the tender process is a denial of a right enshrined under Article 19(1)(g) and also offends the ethos of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There is no intelligible differentia which could be perceived and/or manifestly seen from such sub-clause (I) of Clause 2.2 and, therefore, such classification within the homogeneous class is against the principles emanating from the Part III of the Constitution of India.”

3.1. The learned Additional Government Advocate indicated that since the representation of the petitioner is stated to be pending before the authority concerned, the same can be directed to be disposed of in view of the decision rendered in U-Tech Service (supra).

4. In view of the such conceded position, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of this writ petition with a direction to the opposite party No.3, i.e, the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Computer Application Centre, Odisha to consider and dispose of the representation dated 26th June, 2026 vide Annexure-6, which is stated to be pending, within a period of four weeks from the date of furnishing copy of this order by the petitioner having regard to the view expressed in the judgment dated 6th May, 2026 cited above and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

5. It needs to be mentioned that this order has been passed without issuing notice to the opposite party No.3, i.e., the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Computer Application Centre, Odisha considering commencement of summer vacation a week after and issuing notice would delay in process of empanelment by the said Centre pursuant to the Request for Proposal. Therefore, this order is passed as conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite party Nos.1 & 2.

6. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-May-2026 18:39:39 Signature Not Verified