IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, JJ.
Universal Cables Ltd. and Ors - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors - Respondent
WA No. 409 of 2018
Decided On : 04-06-2018
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.
1. The appellants herein are petitioners 1 and 2 in WP No. 33695 of 2017. They, alongwith respondent Nos. 6 and 7 herein, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent-Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter called "A.P. TRANSCO") in issuing the EPC Works Tender bearing ID No. 119074 announced vide BFB/Tender Notice No. APT-e-05/2017, including conditions tailor-made to qualify only the fourth respondent-LS Cable India Pvt. Ltd., as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; to set aside the said EPC work tender; to restrain the respondents from procuring the EPC work through the subject Tender; direct the respondents not to give effect to, or take further steps pursuant to, the said Tender; to direct the respondents to place on record the official records pertaining to the subject tender; and consequently, after retrieving the said records, to set aside/quash the decision of the respondents in setting out the qualification requirement as mentioned in the subject tender; and to direct the respondents to cancel the bids received pursuant to the subject tender. The parties to this appeal shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioners claim to be dominant market players engaged in the manufacture, supply and laying of power cables in the power transmission and distribution industry, and to have been manufacturing and supplying extra high voltage cables of upto 220 KV for the last seven years, including underground cable systems on turnkey basis. They invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that the qualification requirements (for short the "QRs") set out in the tender notification are wholly arbitrary, irrational, more stringent than the actual requirement for execution of the tender, and tailor-made to suit only the bid of the 4th respondent.
2. The 2nd respondent invited tenders, on its e-procurement platform, for supply, laying, testing and commissioning of 220 KV 1000 Sq.mm XLPE underground (U/G) copper cable, with associated accessories including services, for jointing, terminations, site testing and commissioning the complete cable system for diversion of 220 KV lines, which were passing across the Seed Capital Region (at Amaravathi in Guntur District) on a turnkey basis. Originally, the work notified, under the above said Tender Notice, was for 220 KV and 132 KV EHT lines diversion. However by way of a corrigendum, issued to the above mentioned Tender Notice on 19.9.2017, the work relating to laying of 132 KV EHT lines was deleted, and the Estimated Contract Value (ECV) was reduced from Rs. 670.74 crores to Rs. 544.24 crores.
3. Tenders were invited on the e-procurement platform, and the notification inviting tenders was published in the newspapers on 29.4.2017. The bid documents were allowed to be downloaded from the e-procurement platform on 4.5.2017, and the last date for submission of bids was originally stipulated as 2.6.2017. At the request of the bidders, from time to time, the last date for submission of bids was extended till 30.10.2017. A pre-bid meeting was held on 18.5.2017 wherein several bidders raised queries regarding various technical aspects, and on the qualification requirements. The 2nd respondent furnished its reply to all these queries by 20.9.2017. Even before the extended last date for submission of bids expired on 30.10.2017, the appellants herein, alongwith respondents 6 and 7, filed WP No. 33695 of 2017 before this Court on 9.10.2017. While the 2nd respondent filed its counter-affidavit on 24.10.2017, an interim order was passed on the same day recording the agreement of both Counsel that the tender process may go on, but the price bids shall not be opened after scrutinizing the technical bids, and shall be submitted to the Court for verifying the allegations. Thereafter, the pre-qualification bids (technical bids) were opened on 31.10.2
Dhingra Construction Company v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. The State of Karnataka
Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B.
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of U.P.
Herekchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India
Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.
Union of India v. International Trading Co.
Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal
Maa Binda Express Carrier v. North-East Frontier Railway
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.
Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd.
B.S.N. Joshi v. Nair Coal Services Ltd.
Siemens Public Communication Networks (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Noble Resources Ltd. v. State of Orissa
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Amritsar Gas Service
G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council
Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd.
Indian Railway Construction Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar
R. v. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council, ex. p. Chetnik Developments Ltd.
Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation
Educomp Datamatics Ltd.`s case (supra), MP Oil Extraction v. State of M.P.
Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation
Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.
Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority v. Universal Estate
Star Enterprises v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd.
CSR Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Delhi Science Forum, v. Union of India
New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India
Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. v. Airports Authority of India
Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India
Dimapati Sadasiva Reddi, Vice-Chancellor, Osmania University v. Chancellor
Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar
State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Association
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Hs. Society
The State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan
Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar
Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Officials Association v. State of T.N.
State of Karnataka v. Mangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association
Welfare Association, A.R.P. v. Ranjit P. Gohili
Shashikant Laxman Kale v. Union of India
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Gopal D. Tirthani
B. Manmad Reddy v. Chandra Prakash Reddy
Transport and Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust
Samaj Parivartana Samudaya v. State of Karnataka
G.D. Kelkar v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Gauri Shanker v. Union of India
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India
Sri-la-Sri Subramana Desika Gnanasambanda Pandorasannadhi v. State of Madras
K. Srinivas Rao v. Union of India
Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. v. Cultor Food Science Inc.
State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan
Lachhman Dass v. State of Punjab
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India
Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa
State of J & K v. Bakshi Gulam Mohd
Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor
gpt-4
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.