1999 Supreme(AP) 1026

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GODA RAGHURAM
G.V.P.R, Engineers Limited - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 11-12-99

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Raw Water Reservoir - Petitioner M/s. G. V. P. R - Engineers is one of tenderers for this item of work - Aggrieved by certain developments to which reference would be made hereinafter, petitioner has filed present application seeking that this Court direct 1st respondent to consider and grant request of petitioner contained in representations regarding interchange of rates quoted by petitioner for items of Tender Schedule as regards work relating to raw Water Reservoir Tank, tender specification and thereupon award contract of work relating to raw water reservoir to petitioner, if necessary, by declaring that action of 1st respondent in permitting 2nd respondent to submit a revised tender for said work, is illegal and consequently direct 1st respondent to award contract to petitioner as rates quoted by petitioner are lowest and allow all consequential benefits – Held , Contours of judicial review into State action in matter of entering contracts with individuals are too well recognized to necessitate an exhaustive analysis - In limited context of issues arising in this case, principle applicable is that though lowest tenderer can claim no right to acceptance of his tender, and there inheres a power while inviting tenders to reject all tenders, yet such power ought not to be exercised irrationally or arbitrarily and must depend for its validity on existence of rational reasons - Object of inviting tenders for execution of a work is to provide an equal opportunity to all interesting bidders to compete, to obtain most advantageous rate for execution of work together with requisite expedition in execution and quality, warranted - Thus, fundamental principle governing State action in matter of awarding contracts for its works is equal opportunity, ensuring competitiveness and advantageous rate to public authority duly ensuring requisite quality - There is yet another aspect of matter - Infinite deliberations and dilemma leading to endless negotiations may secure a more advantageous price but at cost of expedient execution of work which is an equally fundamental norm - Good governance cannot be founded on mere endless deliberations and negotiations, a time comes in every decision-making where negotiations and deliberations must end and decision made on available facts and circumstances and best bargain evaluated on such circumstances, In case on hand initial bids were opened and tenders were again called for from eight short listed tenderers and these later bids were opened - Respondent No - 1 acting upon these bids had identified Respondent No - 2 as being lowest tenderer and has awarded work to it fact that petitioner has become conscious of alleged error in his quotation in respect of items 5 and 7 on day after bids were opened on second occasion coupled with request contained in its representation for splitting up of work and award of half of it to petitioner also, is clearly indicative of fact that petitioner wants to avail advantage of knowledge obtained on opening of bids - Refusal of Respondent to keep process of deliberations open endlessly and in refusing to negotiate further with petitioner or refusal in acceding to petitioner s request for rectification of so called error in its prices quoted, cannot be characterized by any standards as an arbitrary, irrational or extraneous conduct - contract is for execution of a work, which is a component of a Thermal Power Project - If Respondent No - 1 has in totality of circumstances considered time to be essence, then such consideration cannot be faulted - Respondent No - 1 is best judge for balancing competing public interests as between a more advantageous price obtainable by endless and prolonged deliberations and negotiations on one hand and a time frame within which such deliberations must end and work begin, on other - Petitioner endeavour to secure a contract for itself despite not being lowest tenderer is sought to be canvassed under rubric of subversion of public interest - Such an endeavour ought not to have benediction of this Court - Writ petition dismissed