Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J.
Vasudeva Infra - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 43663 of 2017 and 1593 of 2018
Decided On : 13-03-2018
Constitution of India – Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 – Tender – Rejection of the bids – Challenged – Since issues that arise for consideration in these two writ petitions are broadly similar, with slight variations, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two writ petitions by way of this common order. In these two writ petitions challenge is to the action of the Chief Administrative Officer (Const.) SCR, Nirman Bhavan, Secunderabad in rejecting the bids of the petitioners herein – Chief Administrative Officer-3rd respondent herein floated two tenders, inviting bids from eligible contractors. First one being Tender for work relating to doubling of track between Guntur-Guntakal Section, Earthwork information including blanketing to GE.0014 specifications, construction of minor bridges, RUBs for LCs and other miscellaneous works from between Guntakal (incl) and Linganenidoddi (excl) Stations-Reach III. The second Tender for the work relating to doubling of track between Guntur-Guntakal section, Earthwork in formation including blanketing to GE.0014 specifications, construction of minor bridges, RUBs for LCs and other miscellaneous works from between Linganenidoddi and Betamcherla stations which is called Reach IV – Held, It is also required to be noted that as per clause 65.15.3 of Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract issued by Engineering Department of Indian Railways in 2014, which is placed on record by the learned Standing Counsel for Railways, production of copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association of Company is a mandatory requirement apart from the above mentioned conditions in the present tender notification – Though it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of W.P. that petitioner herein was eliminated only to award the contract to only leftover bidder for extraneous reasons, in the considered opinion of this Court, is completely bereft of any foundation – Fact remains that petitioners herein failed in enclosing documents which are mandatory in nature and obviously the insistence on production of said documents is to evaluate the financial capabilities of tenderers, as such, they are not entitled for any relief from this Court – It is also brought to the notice of this Court during the course of hearing that Respondent Railway authorities have accepted the bid of unofficial respondent for a sum of Rs. 97,23,32,989.15 after negotiations, as such, it cannot be said that acceptance of the bid of unofficial respondent would have impact on the public exchequer – No public interest involved in these two writ petitions – In view of law laid down in above referred judgments cited by the learned Standing Counsel for Railways and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and as the petitioners failed to upload the documents at the time of submitting the tender – Petitions are dismissed.(Paras 17 and 18)
AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, J.
1. Since the issues that arise for consideration in these two writ petitions are broadly similar, with slight variations, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these two writ petitions by way of this common order. In these two writ petitions challenge is to the action of the Chief Administrative Officer (Const.) SCR, Nirman Bhavan, Secunderabad in rejecting the bids of the petitioners herein.
2. In W.P. No. 43663 of 2017, petitioner is a conglomeration of three Partnership Firms, namely, M/s. C. Suresh Reddy & Co., M/s. C.S.R. Constructions and M/s. Laxven Systems, formed for the sole purpose of participating in response to the e-Tender Notice No. 31-C AO/C/SC/2017-Item 2 dated 1.9.2017.
3. In W.P. No. 1593 of 2018, petitioner is Joint Venture of two Private Limited Companies i.e. M/s. Deepika Infratech Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Hyderabad Towers and Displays Pvt. Ltd. The said Joint Venture was formed vide a Memorandum of Understanding for the sole purpose of participating in the e-Tender Notice No. 31-CAO/C/SC/2017-Item 2 dated 1.9.2017.
4. The Chief Administrative Officer-3rd respondent herein floated two tenders, inviting bids from eligible contractors. First one being Tender No. 31-CAO-C-SC-2017/ITEM 1 for the work relating to doubling of track between Guntur-Guntakal Section, Earthwork information including blanketing to GE.0014 specifications, construction of minor bridges, RUBs for LCs and other miscellaneous works from KM 401.47 to KM 352.600 i.e. between Guntakal (incl) and Linganenidoddi (excl) Stations-Reach III. The second Tender No. 31-CAO-C-SC-2017-ITEM 2 for the work relating to doubling of track between Guntur-Guntakal section, Earthwork in formation including blanketing to GE.0014 specifications, construction of minor bridges, RUBs for LCs and other miscellaneous works from KM 352.600 to KM 297.000 i.e. between Linganenidoddi and Betamcherla stations which is called Reach IV.
5. In these two writ petitions, the controversy is with regard to Item No. 2 only. The petitioner in W.P. No. 1593 of 2018 emerged as successful bidder in respect of Item No. 1. Petitioners in these two writ petitions submitted their tenders for Item No. 2. The respondent authorities rejected the bids of the petitioners for Item No. 2. In W.P. No. 1593 of 2018, the Respondents disqualified the bid on the ground that the petitioner failed to upload the MOA of one JV Partner. In W.P. No. 43663 of 2017, the Respondents disqualified the bid of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not upload the 26AS of M/s. C. Suresh Reddy & Co. as per paragraph 5 of the Tender Notice.
6. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri P. Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 1593 of 2018 and Sri Vemulapalli Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 43663 of 2017, Sri Rajeev Reddy, Sri P. Bhaskar and Sri Peri Prabahkar, learned Standing Counsel for Railways and Sri J. Srinadh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for unofficial respondent and perused the material available on record.
7. Submissions/contentions of Sri P. Sri Raghuram. learned Senior Counsel
(1) The action impugned is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
(2) The petitioner Joint Venture is fully qualified and did fulfill all the requisite criteria for consideration.
(3) Due to an unfortunate mistake in respect of Item No. 2 work, while uploading the requisite documents, MOA of JV Partner HTDPL, the AoA was uploaded twice instead of once and consequently the MoA was not uploaded as required and that the said inadvertent mistake was not within the knowledge of the petitioner herein at that point of time.
(4) There is absolutely no justification on the part of the Respondents in disqualifying the bid of the petitioner for Item No. 2, as the subject document was already uploaded for Item No. 1 and was available with the Respondents.
(
gpt-4
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
