Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.V.S.RAO
GVPREL-MEE (J.V), General power of Attorney Holder, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., Irrigation and Command Area Development department - Respondent
Decided On : 07-15-05
Partnership Act, 1932 – Sections 45, 46 and 47 –Tender issue –learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of tender of petitioner JV, though admittedly is the lowest for the packages 90, 91 and 98, is illegal – It is his submission that even after withdrawal of MEE from JV, by reason of the general Power of Attorney executed in favour of authorised signatory, the entity of JV as such does not become non-existent and respondents have committed illegality in coming to the conclusion that the JV is non-existent –In such an event, according to the learned counsel, the Government ought to have ignored the letter addressed by and court ought to have accepted the lowest tender submitted by petitioner JV –Held, The offer for pre-qualification to tender made by the petitioner JV and the commercial bid made by GVPREL are produced before this Court –A perusal of these would show that surprisingly the commercial bid was not made by Mr. G. S. S. Reddy as authorized signatory of petitioner JV but the commercial bid was made on behalf of GVPR Engineers Limited –This would also strengthen the view taken by this Court – It is also brought to the notice of this Court though tenders were invited for various packages under water resources development project, so far no tender is finalised and even if tenders are finalised for some packages, the work is yet to be commenced –Therefore, there would be any prejudice to the public interest by reason of delay if any in the commencement of the project work – For all the above reasons, though the petitioner has admittedly a status of L1 in respect of packages 90, 91 and 98 as it became non-existent, the mandamus as prayed directing the respondents cannot be issued – Writ Petition disposed of
( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is not much in dispute. M/s. GVPR Engineers Limited (GVPREL) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. M/s. Megha engineering Enterprises (MEE) is a partnership firm. Both of them entered into a joint venture agreement on 31-8-2004 in the name and style of GVPREL - MEE (JV ). M/s. GVPREL is lead partner in JV. This was done pursuant to a tender notice No. 2, dt. 13-8-2004 inviting offers for pre- qualification for water resource projects. The deponent of the writ affidavit was authorised to represent the joint venture and sign all pre-qualification documents. After evaluating the pre-qualification documents, the Government empanelled 46 concerns/companies vide their orders in G. O. Ms. No. 727, Irrigation and cad (PPMU), dt. 24-9-2004. Subsequently, by another order being G. O. Rt. No. 958, dt. 28-12-2004 the Government empanelled 19 more companies/concerns. The petitioner jv was empanelled vide G. O. Rt. No. 727, dt. 24-9-2004 for participation in the procurement for medium size packages of projects under EPC system.
( 3 ) THE petitioner was also allotted user-id as it was e-procurement. The Government of andhra Pradesh issued tender notice Note procurement-3/2004-2005 for different packages. The petitioner JV submitted its tenders for packages 90, 91 and 98 through its authorised G. P. A holder - G. S. S. Reddy along with bank guarantees on 15-2-2005. The tenders for packages 90 and 91 were opened by the competent authority on 19-2-2005. The petitioner JV was found to be lowest tenderer - L1. The difference in the quoted value between L1 and L2 was Rs. 8. 48 crores for package 90, and Rs. 7. 20 crores for package 91.
( 4 ) MEE, another JV partner of petitioner sent a letter on 21 -2-2005 to the respondents withdrawing from joint venture and requesting not to consider the bids submitted by petitioner jv. However, MEE did not send a copy of the letter to the petitioner GVPREL or its GPA holder. Be that as it is, on 7-4-2005 bids for package No. 98 were opened. Petitioner JV was found to be L1 with a difference between l1 and L2 at Rs. 2. 10 crores. It is the case of the petitioner that the bids submitted by it for packages 90, 91 and 98 were accepted by second respondent and were sent to tender evaluation committee.
( 5 ) SRI G. S. S. Reddy having come to know through newspaper reports that MEE addressed a letter to the respondents, addressed a le
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
