Facts of the Case

M/s SakRobotix Lab Private Limited, an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of robotics equipment, challenged the participation of EDICIL (India) Limited (opposite party no.4) in a tender (RFP No. OCAC-SEGP-INFRA-0025-2023-23028 dated 24.04.2023) floated by the Odisha Computer Application Centre (OCAC) for supply and installation of 500 Robotics Labs in secondary schools across Odisha, on behalf of the School & Mass Education Department. The petitioner alleged EDICIL had furnished misleading information in its bid and sought a direction that the contract instead be awarded to it as the lowest bidder. This is a public-procurement/tender-law dispute and has no connection to GST law.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether EDICIL's bid ought to have been rejected for allegedly furnishing misleading information in the RFP process.
  2. Whether the contract should instead be settled with the petitioner as the lowest financial bidder.
  3. Whether the petitioner itself had approached the Court with clean hands, having allegedly suppressed material facts.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • EDICIL had deliberately provided misleading information in its RFP submission and its bid/participation ought to be rejected.
  • The petitioner, being the lowest bidder in the financial bid, was entitled to have the contract settled in its favour.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The State/OCAC and EDICIL contested the petitioner's version and, during the proceedings, an officer of the Bihar Skill Development Mission appeared and filed an affidavit clarifying that a certificate earlier relied upon in favour of EDICIL had in fact been revoked — a fact material to the dispute.

Court Order / Findings

  • On verification, the Court found that a certificate issued in EDICIL's favour by the Bihar Skill Development Mission had indeed been revoked, and that the correct factual position had only emerged after the Court required the concerned officer to appear and explain.
  • The Court held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed certain material facts relevant to the dispute, deciding that issue against the petitioner.
  • Finding no merit in the writ petition on an overall assessment of the facts and law, the Court dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

This case has no GST holding — it is a public-tender dispute decided against the petitioner primarily because of its own non-disclosure of material facts, not because of any finding that EDICIL's conduct was proper. Bidders challenging a rival's eligibility documents should ensure their own version of the facts (including any certificates they rely upon) is fully accurate and current before approaching a writ court.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226, under which the writ petition was filed, applying general principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness in State tendering (and the doctrine that relief can be refused to a petitioner who suppresses material facts).

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioner — the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit and for suppression of material facts, without costs.

Case Details

  • Court: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
  • Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 26720 of 2023
  • Coram: Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.R. Sarangi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman
  • Date of Hearing: 24.08.2023; Date of Judgment: 31.08.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.