Samantaray v. Khuntia: SC Restores Odisha Embankment Tender

High Court Order Passed Behind Successful Bidder's Back Cannot Stand: Supreme Court Restores Odisha Embankment Tender

Sanjay Kumar Samantaray v. Shantilata Khuntia & Ors. Decided 5 November 2026

Published: 13 November 2026 · NyayVidhan · 3 min read

In Sanjay Kumar Samantaray v. Shantilata Khuntia & Ors., the Supreme Court set aside an Orissa High Court judgment of 18.02.2026 that had quashed an Odisha embankment-protection tender from the stage of financial bid opening. The writ petitioner, a disqualified bidder, had not impleaded the appellant, the successful L-1 bidder, so the order was ‘passed behind the back of the successful bidder’ (para 19). Finding that a remand would serve no useful purpose, the Court directed that the work order be issued to the appellant (paras 20-21).

Key holdings

The High Court's judgment of 18.02.2026, which quashed the tender process from the stage of financial bid opening, was set aside (paras 14, 20).

The order, passed on a writ petition that did not implead the successful L-1 bidder, could not be sustained (para 19).

On fresh technical evaluation the writ petitioner's bid again failed; she did not counter this or appear (paras 16, 18).

Errors in recording the reasons for disqualification were inadvertent and rectified; no mala fide was alleged (para 19).

Remand was declined as serving no useful purpose, and the appellant is to be issued the work order (paras 20-21).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The Chief Engineer & Basin Manager, Mahanadi Kathajodi System, Bhubaneswar invited e-tenders on 05.05.2025 for protecting the scoured bank of the Devi right embankment (para 4). Respondent No.1 was disqualified for not furnishing ‘work-in-hand’ details under Clause 4(E) of the tender notice, as the committees confirmed (paras 5-6). After a portal glitch on 13.10.2025 was corrected the same evening (paras 7-8), the final bids of 13 qualified bidders were opened; all quoted the same rate, and the appellant won the automated lottery (para 9). Respondent No.1's writ petition did not implead him; the High Court, without effectively considering his intervention application, quashed the process from financial bid opening and ordered a fresh technical evaluation (paras 10-14).

Court's Findings

The State's counter affidavit recorded that, in compliance with the High Court's order, a fresh technical evaluation was conducted and respondent No.1 again failed the technical criteria; a letter of 21.02.2026 records that ‘the original technical bid evaluation shall remain unchanged even after re-evaluation’ (para 16). The Court was ‘fully satisfied’ that the High Court's interference in a tender for ‘a very crucial work’ protecting the Devi River embankment ‘was not justified’ (para 17). Respondent No.1 had not countered the letter and, despite due service, did not appear (para 18). Initial errors in recording the reasons for her disqualification were inadvertent and rectified (para 19). Because she had not impleaded the successful bidder, the impugned order ‘suffers from the vice’ of having been ‘passed behind the back of the successful bidder’ and could not be sustained; nor was any mala fide alleged in the bid evaluation (para 19). A remand would ordinarily have been considered, but ‘no useful purpose would be served’ by one (para 20).

Legal Principle

An order quashing a tender process, made on a disqualified bidder's writ petition to which the successful bidder was not made a party, suffers from the vice of having been passed behind that bidder's back and cannot be sustained (para 19). Where re-evaluation leaves the writ petitioner's bid technically unresponsive, a remand may serve no useful purpose (para 20).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

The order's practical message is about who must be before the court in a tender challenge. A disqualified bidder who attacks the tender process in writ proceedings without impleading the bidder declared successful exposes any order obtained to being set aside as passed behind that bidder's back (para 19). The Court also gave weight to the authorities' fresh evaluation, which left the writ petitioner's bid technically non-compliant, and to the absence of any mala fide allegation (paras 16, 19). Because the work was crucial and a remand would serve no useful purpose, the matter ends here rather than returning to the High Court (para 20).

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.