IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
New Hyderabad Medak Transport - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6375 of 2015
Decided On: 15.07.2015
Constitution of India –Letter Patent –Clause 16, 26 – Appeal – Essential Commodities – Transport Tender - Petitioner was a transport contractor for transportation of food grains and other essential commodities of the second respondent Corporation. While so, the second respondent Corporation called for tenders for transportation of food grains, pulses or any other commodities from various places within and outside the district to various places within and outside the district under Stage-I excluding the transportation to fair price shop points vide tender notification. schedule of filing and opening of tenders petitioner along with the fourth respondent participated in the tenders. tenders were opened. petitioners tender was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the permit certificate for lorry bearing. The fourth respondent was declared as the successful tenderer. tender condition on the basis of which the tender of the petitioner was rejected is clause 16(f) and it reads as follows: copies of RC Books, latest Form 24 B (Registered abstract), Fitness Certificate and valid permits of own/hired vehicles declared in the tender along with hire agreement in case of hired vehicles, shall be furnished along with hard copies as per the time schedule. These documents need not be uploaded in eprocurement." Clause 26, which reads as follows, is also relevant for the purpose of the present case –Held Supreme Court rejected the argument of the tenderer that a document, which is valid and active, can be submitted even at the time of signing the memorandum of understanding, when the terms and conditions of tender require them to be produced along with the bid document a copy of the quality certificate which is valid and active on the date of submission of the bid.Clear position of law, submission of permit certificate later to the opening of bid on 10.03.2015 pursuant to the interim order of this Court cannot make the bid of the petitioner valid. Such a course of action of the petitioner cannot be allowed to take place in view of the clear terms and conditions of tender. However, it is a different case when the employer himself chooses to relax the non-essential conditions and allows the bid to be accepted. But, in this case, the bid of the fourth respondent, who fulfilled the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tenders, was accepted and the price bid of the petitioner was not opened at all. Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed, and is, accordingly, dismissed. miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs -Petition is Dismissed.
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri Vedula Venkataramana for petitioner, Sri A. Jagan for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, for respondent No. 4.
2. In this case, the facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was a transport contractor for transportation of food grains and other essential commodities of the second respondent Corporation. While so, the second respondent Corporation called for tenders for transportation of food grains, pulses or any other commodities from various places within and outside the district to various places within and outside the district under Stage-I excluding the transportation to fair price shop points for the year 2015-2016 (01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016) vide tender notification No. PDS 2/Movt./FG-5(1)/Stage-I Tenders/2015-16/TS dated 28.02.2015. The schedule of filing and opening of tenders is as follows:
| Bid Document Downloading Start Date | 01.03.2015 at 11.30 am onwards |
| Bid Document Downloading End Date | 10.03.2015 at 11:00 am |
| Last Date & Time for Receipt of online Bids | 10.03.2015 at 12.00 pm |
| Last Date & Time for Receipt of hard copies of technical bids along with Samples | 10.03.2015 at 1:00 pm |
| Technical Bid Opening Date And time (Qualification and Eligibility Stage) | 10.03.2015 at 2:00 pm |
| Financial Bid Opening Date and Time (Financial Bid Stage) | 10.03.2015 at 3:30 pm |
The petitioner along with the fourth respondent participated in the tenders. The tenders were opened on 10.03.2015. The petitioner's tender was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the permit certificate for lorry bearing No. AP 13 X 3012. The fourth respondent was declared as the successful tenderer.
3. The relevant tender condition on the basis of which the tender of the petitioner was rejected is clause 16(f) and it reads as follows:
"f) The copies of RC Books, latest Form 24 B (Registered abstract), Fitness Certificate and valid permits of own/hired vehicles declared in the tender along with hire agreement in case of hired vehicles, shall be furnished along with hard copies as per the time schedule. These documents need not be uploaded in eprocurement."
4. Clause 26, which reads as follows, is also relevant for the purpose of the present case.
"26. Tenderers should at least have 18 trucks of 10/17 Mts. capacity preferably 17 Mts. capacity each (owned/hired). Out of this, minimum 9 vehicles should be owned by the tenderer and the remaining 9 vehicles can be owned or hired. In case of hired vehicles, the tenderer should furnish hire agreement with the owners for a minimum period of one year otherwise they are not eligible to participate in tenders. Trucks involved in 6A cases/diversion cases and/or other trucks belonging to their owners should not be hired. Vehicle details should be furnished in the Tender form. Tenders found without vehicle details and/or copies of the vehicle RC Books along with copy of valid RTA permits stands automatically disqualified.
(a) The successful Tenderers have to utilize his/her/their own and hired vehicles which were declared in tenders for movement of food grains under Stage I in addition to engaging other vehicles without fail."
5. It is the case of the petitioner that it is having 12 own vehicles and 6 hired vehicles and has permit certificate for all the vehicles. It also submitted Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 15.00 lakhs and quoted the lowest price i.e., - 5.03% on the existing rates. The allegation is that the tender of the petitioner was rejected with an intention to help the fourth respondent.
6. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit stating that tenders were called for 10 districts and in respect of tender notice for all the districts, as many as 23 tenders were received and after due technical verification,
Glodyne Technoserve Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh
W.B. State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.
Ramanna Vs. I.A. Authority of India
M.V. Krishna Reddy v. The Commissioner, Commissionerate of Tenders, Government of A.P.
M/s. G.J. Fernadez v. State of Karnataka
Ram Gajadhar Nishad v. State of U.P. (1990) 2 SCC 486
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa
Sorath Builders v. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited
Siemens Public Communication Networks Private Limited v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.