V. RAJAGOPALA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH the W. P. M. P. is posted before me, the main writ petition is disposed of with the consent of the parties.

( 2 ) THE action of the 1st respondent-The Singareni Collenes Co. Ltd. , a Government company (hereinafter called the Company), in accepting the tenders of and technically qualifying the 4th respondent herein, for the work of drilling of blast holes by using machines at different open cast projects of the Company in overburden and coal, is under challenge in this writ petition.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case, as disclosed in the affidavit filed by the petitioners, briefly, are as follows : All the 34 petitioners are proprietary concerns carrying on business in boreweli drilling in the State of A. P. They own bore-well machinery having purchased the same by availing financial assistance from various institutions. The Company, being involved in the excavation of coal in the open cast mines, has required drilling of blast holes for the purpose of extracting coal of certain diameters by using machines at different open cast projects of the Company. The Company entered into rate contract with R-3 Corporation for the drilling of blast holes. R-3 Corporation was entrusting the said work to several other boreweli drillers including the petitioners for executing the works of drilling, since the Corporation could not execute the work on its own. The petitioners and other drillers have been doing business with R-3 Corporation at fixed rates. The Company, in view of the large volume of the estimated work, has taken a decision to call for lenders. Accordingly a tender notification was issued on 29-8-1995 for drilling blast holes, by using machines at different open cast projects, the closing date being 10-9-1996. As per the tender conditions, the tenderer should have a minimum experience of 3 years in similar job and should have handled a minimum of 5,00,000 meters of 6 1/2"/150mm. size hole drilling in any one financial year during the previous 3 years. It is further stipulated that the annual turnover of the tenderer should be about Rs. 1. 5 crores in any one year during previous three years. None of the petitioners satisfied the conditions. Hence, they did not respond to the tender notification.

( 4 ) THE 4th respondent, a partnership firm, came into existence in September, 1996, comprising of 16 individual drillers. Prior to the registration of the partnership firm, the J6 individual drillers were carrying on business of borewell drilling and were doing the work which was entrusted to them by R-3 Corporation. There was no contract of any sort between R-3 Corporation and the individual firms who have now constituted as R-4 firm. Though they have been doing borewell drilling work, none of the 16 individual firms are having any requisite qualifications required under the conditions of the tender notification. R-3 Corporation has declined to issue certificates of experience with regard to the work entrusted to them, but by an order of this court in W. P. No. 18571 of 1996 experience certificates were given to various individual firms. Since the 16 individual firms did not satisfy the conditions of experience and turnover to respond to the notification, thinking that by registering themselves as a partnership firm they could satisfy the conditions of the notification, they had hatched up a plan. Accordingly, they constituted themselves into a partnership firm, R-4 herein, in September, 1996 and submitted the tender in the name of the partnership firm. But R-4 is not technically qualified as it had not complied with the conditions 4 and 5 of the notification. But the Company had accepted the tender of R-4 firm and had technically qualified the documents of R-4 firm. The tender notification was issued for opening of Part-B covers on 3-1-1997. The action of the respondents 1 and 2 in technically qualifying the documents ot R-4 firm, is assailed by the petitioners as illegal and as committing fraud on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document