B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE first respondent herein filed W. P. No. 1529 of 2003 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the appellants herein in disqualifying it from the tender process and awarding the contract to the second respondent herein as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The first respondent herein also prayed for grant of an appropriate direction directing the appellants herein to award the contract to it.

( 2 ) THE learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition duly setting aside the award of contract to the second respondent herein and further directed the appellants herein to consider the tender of the first respondent herein also and finalise the tender afresh, as per rules.

( 3 ) IN order to consider as to whether the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmities, it may be necessary to notice the relevant facts leading to filing of this Writ appeal.

( 4 ) THE appellants herein called for Sealed open Tenders vide Tender Notice dated 8-11-2002 in respect of the works relating to upgradation of railway infrastructure for introduction of suburban traffic (MMTS) - secunderabad/hyderabad-Lingampalli and secunderabad-Faluknuma sections - earthwork, construction of suburban booking office, circulating area, approach road and miscellaneous works at Necklace road Station with an estimated approximate value of Rs. 156. 79 lakhs. Clause (6) of the said Tender Notice prescribes the eligibility criteria for participating in the tender process and it says that the tenderers should possess the credentials and at least should have completed one work of similar nature, viz. , building works costing not less than l/3rd of the tendered value during the last three years preceding the date of tender opening. The tenderers are required to submit a certificate from an office of the government or semi-government indicating therein the names of the works completed, value c f the works and period during which completed. The tenderer (s) is/are further required to submit along with his/their tender a Statement showing similar works executed by him/them and also credentials from the party with whom he/they have worked for the successful completion of his/ their work. They should also submit a list of their Engineering Organisation and equipment, construction tools and plants available with them.

( 5 ) THE first respondent as well as the second respondent herein apart from many others submitted their respective offers enclosing necessary documents including the credentials, income tax clearance certificates and details of the machinery held by them. The tenders were opened as scheduled at 11-30 a. m. on 3-12-2002.

( 6 ) THE first respondent herein submitted a Certificate dated 15-9-2002 issued by the competent authority of South Central railway indicating that it was awarded work of proposed development of Sports complex at RRC Ground at Secunderabad whose accepted value was Rs. 1,86,74,718-49. The said Certificate reveals that the first respondent was, so far, paid an amount of rs. 12. 00 lakhs and equipment worth rs. 30. 00 lakhs was supplied by the first respondent and was awaiting installation. The first respondent asserts that it is qualified for being considered for the work now tendered by the appellants herein as l/3rd value of the tendered works comes to rs. 53. 00 lakhs (approximately ). That apart, the tender of the first respondent was the lowest, when the tenders were opened on 3-12-2002.

( 7 ) THE appellants herein having disqualified the first respondent herein entrusted the work to the second respondent herein. The first respondent s tender was disqualified on the ground that the work executed by it did not satisfy the eligibility criteria as per the tender notice.

( 8 ) THE contention of the first respondent herein in the writ petition was that the appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document