Cuttack: Odisha high court has imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on a petitioner who challenged works department instructions aimed at preventing cartelisation and bid-rigging in govt tenders, observing that his conduct gave the court an impression of a “latent intent to promote cartelisation”.A division bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to deposit the fine amount with the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The money will be used for the welfare of juveniles.The court passed the judgment on Sept 30, with its web copy uploaded on Tuesday.The petition had challenged two internal communications issued by the works department in connection with measures to check cartelisation and ensure fair competition in govt tendering. The petitioner, a construction contractor, questioned the instructions, but the HC was not impressed.The bench rejected the argument, holding that the communications were merely internal executive instructions. “Such communication is intended to ensure and/or streamline the functioning and workability within the department,” the court observed.“The object of the said communication is to activate the provisions of the Competition Act,” the bench observed, adding that challenging such instructions could create a hindrance in taking action against cartelisation. “The conduct of the petitioner gives us an impression that he sought to get away from the aforesaid letters, obviously with the latent intent to promote cartelisation,” the judges remarked.The instructions required tender-inviting authorities to ensure genuine competition, prevent cartelisation and bid-rigging, conduct detailed scrutiny of tenders and avoid mechanical acceptance of bids. They also provided for administrative action, reporting serious cases to the Competition Commission of India (CCI), fixing responsibility and maintaining records.The petitioner argued that the communications effectively encroached upon the powers vested exclusively in the CCI under the Competition Act, 2002. However, the bench said there was nothing in the instructions to suggest that the authorities intended to override the Competition Act or assume the CCI’s jurisdiction.The court noted that the instructions were consistent with Section 26 of the Competition Act, under which a reference can be made to the CCI and, upon forming a prima facie opinion, it can order an investigation by the director-general.