SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(AP) 385

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Mekala Yadaiah - Appellant
Versus
A.P.State Warehousing Corporation, Hyd. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-11-02

Headnote:

Constitution of India ,1950- Articles 299, 14, 19 (1) (g) - Tender - Issue tender notice – Challenged - Petitioner challenges action of first respondent in entrusting the handling and transport work (Handt work) in respect of godowns situated at village otherwise than by issuing tender notification as arbitrary, illegal and violative of rights guaranteed under Constitution and for a consequential direction to respondents to issue tender notice for awarding contract of Handt work at the above godowns - Problem of acute space shortage in State for procurement maintenance storage and preservation of food grains, FCI offered minimum guarantee of 7 years occupancy for construction of 15 lakhs tons capacity of godowns to first respondent so that it can formulate a scheme for making available sufficient number of godowns at various places in Andhra Pradesh - In turn State Warehousing Corporation evaluated a scheme in consultation with FCI and State Government to encourage private investors/partnership firms to construct and make available sufficient number of godowns to give as many services to private sector as possible - In response to the above notification Storages and some others offered their bids which was accepted and was awarded the tender of constructing godowns in Nalgonda center by nomination by duly executing agreement - On the basis of the above agreement M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Storages constructed six godowns with a capacity of 5000 M. Tons each by investing an expenditure of about 4 1/2 crores in land belonging to them and delivered possession of 5 godowns on within sixty days and the remaining godown was given possession - As per the package of construction, preservation, maintenance storage Handt work was awarded to the investor at a discount of 5% on the existing rates - Present writ petition has been filed without impleading the firm as a party respondent to writ petition – Held, Writ petitioner with respect to alleged arbitrariness of respondent No. 1 was that it awarded Handt work without inviting tenders - There cannot be any dispute with proposition generally that State or its instrumentalities largesse intended to be conferred or resorted to public auction or award should be by way of inviting tenders from all concerned - Method of guaranteeing compliance with rigour of Article 14 of Constitution - It is now accepted position that one of the prime economic policies breezing across the country is to minimize involvement of State or its Undertakings in the matter of investments, as neither the Central nor the State Governments and its instrumentalities have resources to sustain enterprises and are not able to stand on their own in new environment of intense competition – Accordingly it issued fender notification inviting entrepreneurs for construction of such godowns and in return they assured 7 years occupancy with an assured rent - However, to minimize expenditure in maintaining such godowns including maintenance supervisory etc and to undertake necessary repairs during occupancy period first respondent in consultation with FCI and State Government decided that Handt on nomination will go as package along with preservation and maintenance after discussing same in Project Co-ordination Committee meeting which was participated by all investors who accepted the proposal - Well settled proposition of law that in absence of any mala fides attributed to Government agencies in awarding a particular work by negotiation resulting in corresponding loss to Corporation or award of contract was due to extraneous consideration non-floating of tenders or not holding public auction would not in all cases be deemed to be result of exercise of executive power in an arbitrary manner - Making an exception to general rule of awarding largesse by public auction or by tenders could be justified if a challenge is made - Writ petition is accordingly dismissed

A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the first respondent in entrusting the handling and transport work (Handt work) in respect of godowns situated at Anishetty Duppalapalli village, Nalgonda otherwise than by issuing tender notification as arbitrary, illegal and violative of rights guaranteed under Constitution and for a consequential direction to the respondents to issue tender notice for awarding contract of Handt work at the above godowns.

( 2 ) THE genesis of the lis: To overcome the problem of acute space shortage in the State for procurement, maintenance, storage and preservation of food grains, FCI offered minimum guarantee of 7 years occupancy for construction of 15 lakhs tons capacity of godowns to the first respondent, so that it can formulate a scheme for making available sufficient number of godowns at various places in Andhra Pradesh. In turn the State Warehousing Corporation evaluated a scheme in consultation with FCI and State Government to encourage private investors/partnership firms to construct and make available sufficient number of godowns to give as many services to private sector as possible. The broad aspect of the scheme is to see the investors have to construct godowns strictly following the FCI specifications at the identified places at their own costs and make them available to R1 within time frame because there is large scale demonstration by ryots for procurement of bumper crops by FCI at remunerative price. As an incentive to the private investors, the corporation guaranteed 7 years occupancy at a rent of Rs. 2. 00 per sq. feet per month. The Marketing Department in addition to FCI was giving an incentive for quick completion starting at Rs. 1. 00 per ton from 65 days and thereafter at Rs. 1/ per day to 115 days. The above incentives under the scheme are given by FCI Marketing Division and NABARD. To minimize the expenditure in construction and also for its maintenance, the private investors were made responsible to keep the godowns fit for storage during the period it is with the corporation and they are responsible for annual or casual repairs considered by the Corporation for the proper maintenance and storage of stocks. In order to create a better package, return and control over assets and also to attract more number of people for constructing the godowns, it was decided to award H and T work contract by nomination to the private investors who offered their godowns with sole intention to encourage public-private partnership in participation and storage of food grains. The scheme was notified by the first respondent on 17-3-2001 inviting offers from private parties for construction of godowns with a capacity of 15 lakh M. Tons under 7 years occupancy guarantee for storage of food grains in several places identified in this regard in the State of Andhra Pradesh including Nalgonda District. In response to the above notification, M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Storages and some others offered their bids which was accepted and was awarded the tender of constructing godowns in Nalgonda center by nomination by duly executing agreement on 24-5-2001. On the basis of the above agreement, M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Storages constructed six godowns with a capacity of 5000 M. Tons each by investing an expenditure of about 4 1/2 crores in the land belonging to them and delivered possession of 5 godowns on 6-8-2001 within sixty days and the remaining godown was given possession on 13-9-2001. As per the package of construction, preservation, maintenance, storage, Handt work was awarded to the investor at a discount of 5% on the existing rates. Questioning the award of H and T work at the above godowns in favour of M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Storages, the present writ petition has been filed without impleading the firm as a party respondent to the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE partner of M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Storages filed WPMP No. 3309 of 2002 to implead himself as party respondent



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top