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

1986 Supreme(AP) 283

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.SEETHARAM REDDY
Amarchand Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 07-25-86

Rejection of lowest tender on comparative merits and acceptance of second lowest tender does not amount to blacklisting of party whose lowest tender was rejected. Acceptance of second lowest tender on comparative considerations and suitability of performance does not violate principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

TENDER - REJECTION - BLACKLISTING - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VOLUNTARY REDUCTION OF TENDER AMOUNT - VALIDITY - Held, rejection of lowest tender on comparative merits and acceptance of second lowest tender does not amount to blacklisting of party whose lowest tender was rejected. Acceptance of second lowest tender on comparative considerations and suitability of performance does not violate principles of natural justice. No notice and opportunity to party whose lowest tender was rejected is necessitated. What all has to be examined in such circumstances in accepting any tender other than lowest is whether lowest tender has been treated fairly and honestly in rejecting same.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a building contractor, sought a writ of mandamus declaring the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondent by the Chief Engineer, M.E.S., South Zone, Madras, as illegal and void; and in turn to accept the tender of the petitioner for the construction of residential accommodation for D.A.D. staff and allied services at Secunderabad notified in February, 1985.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's tender was rejected on comparative merits and acceptance in consequence of the second lowest, would not amount to blacklisting of the party whose lowest tender was rejected. The acceptance of the second lowest on comparative considerations and suitability of the performance does not violate the principles of natural justice and, therefore, no notice and opportunity to the party, whose lowest tender was rejected, is necessitated.

Issues: 1. Whether rejection of lowest tender on comparative merits and acceptance of second lowest tender amounts to blacklisting of party whose lowest tender was rejected? 2. Whether acceptance of second lowest tender on comparative considerations and suitability of performance violates principles of natural justice? 3. Whether notice and opportunity to party whose lowest tender was rejected is necessitated?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Rejection of lowest tender on comparative merits and acceptance in consequence of the second lowest, would not amount to blacklisting of the party whose lowest tender was rejected. 2. Acceptance of second lowest tender on comparative considerations and suitability of performance does not violate principles of natural justice. 3. No notice and opportunity to party whose lowest tender was rejected is necessitated.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

A. SEETARAM REDDY, J.

( 1 ) ORDER :- The petitioner Firm, M/s. Amarchand Sharma, a building contractor, seek to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondent by the Chief Engineer, M. E. S. , South Zone, Madras, respondent 2 herein, as illegal and void; and in turn to accept the tender of the petitioner for the construction of residential accommodation for D. A. D. staff and allied services at Secunderabad notified in February, 1985.

( 2 ) THE relevant format of the case in brief is that the petitioner firm, as averred in the affidavit, are registered as a Class contractors in Southern Command. Various works have been taken up and completed since the year 1940. The 2nd respondent had earlier accepted the tenders of the petitioner-Firm up to Rs. 83 lakhs for a single work and it was completed without any complaint. That apart about eight contracts running into several lakhs were also taken up and completed satisfactorily right up to 1982-83. It is well equipped Firm with all the technical know-how available. During the month of February 1979, the 2nd respondent and the Chief Engineer (Randd), Picket, Secunderabad called for tenders for (1) construction of Airmen s quarters and officers mess at Bidar, (2) construction of auditorium at Airforce Academy, Dundigal, Hyderabad and (3) construction of covered storage accommodation and open stock-yards for stones of D. R. D. L. , Hyderabad. In order to tender when approached for the supply of tender forms, the same as refused without any reason and consequently the petitioner had to file a writ petition for the issuance of tender forms. After admitting the writ petition in W. P. No. 6543/79, interim directions were given for the supply of tender forms subject to the eligibility and pursuantly the tender forms were furnished and the same were submitted. In fact, thereafter the 2nd respondent and the Chief Engineer (R and D) called for tenders in respect of fresh works and the tender submitted by the petitioner was in fact accepted by the 2nd respondent and the Chief Engineer and thereafter the work was duly executed in the years 1980-84.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the 2nd respondent notified tenders in Feb. 1985 for the following three works : (I) For construction of residential accommodation for D. A. D. staff and allied services at Secunderabad; (2) For construction of staff community hall, shopping centre and allied serving at Secunderabad to the aforesaid staff; and (3) For provision of gun shed and gun park for medium guns at Artillery Centre, Golkonda costing about Rs. 30 lakhs. The petitioner-Firm sought for tender forms and the same were furnished only in respect of items 1 and 2 and the third one was not ripe then. Tenders in respect of two works were submitted and the petitioner being the second lowest in both the tenders, the tender forms in respect of second work were filed on 4-10-1985 which were received by the 2nd respondent, but however, the 2nd respondent cancelled the tender in October, 1985 unilaterally without any paper publication and again despatched tender forms to the other contractors who had filed the earlier tenders in respect of the same tender as well as in respect of third tender which was denied to the petitioner-Firm without any reason. Since the last date for submission of tender forms for the recalled tender was 15-11-1985 and was later extended to 30-11-1985 and for the third one being December, 1985 and having come to know about the cancellation and calling for fresh tenders, the petitioner-Firm requested the 2nd respondent in the first week of November, 1985 at Madras to issue the tender forms for the said two tenders, but the same was refused.

( 4 ) THE Chief Engineer (R and D), Secunderabad also called for tenders for construction of provision of accommodation for lecture hall, laboratory room and technical information centre at D. M. R. L. , Hyderabad, which was published in August, 1985 and the petitioner applied
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top