Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to favour someone or is so arbitrary and irrational that no reasonable authority acting reasonably and in accordance with the relevant law could have reached to such a conclusion and as to whether public interest is affected.

KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed “to declare the tender notice bearing reference Lr.No.Mktg/M2/G/291220/WB/KMS/2020-21, dated 08.02.2021 and corrigendum in Lr.No.Mktg/M2/291220/WB/KMS/2020-21, dated 15.02.2021, which were prepared by the first respondent with a mala fide intention to prohibit the existing transport contractors from Gunny Bales Transportation and to appoint big contractors only as transport contractors as illegal and arbitrary”.

2. Heard Sri L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel, representing learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Bobbili Srinivas and learned Government Pleader Mr. Vivekananda, appearing on behalf of learned Additional Advocate-General II Mr. Jasti Naga Bhushan for the first respondent and with their consent the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

3. The petitioner is a transport contractor and has been transporting jute gunny bales from various jute mills. The first respondent Corporation issued tender notice dated 16.11.2019 for transportation of jute gunny bales from West Bengal to Andhra Pradesh and the basic condition of the tender document is that the bidders should have a turn over of Rs.30.00 Crores for the last three years and they should have 10 own lorries and 20 own/hired lorries; e-reverse auction was conducted on 05.12.2019 and one Balaji Transport has become L1 and the petitioner’s son is one of the partners in the said Balaji Transport; the petitioner’s son is doing his own business independent of the petitioner; in the assembly elections that were conducted in 2019, petitioner contested for the office of MLA as a candidate of Janasena party, but the second respondent was elected as MLA and as the petitioner is protesting the activities of the second respondent, he bore a grudge against him and addressed a letter dt.Nil.12.2019 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister requesting to cancel the said tenders, which reads as follows.

“In this connection, I submit that in previous TDP Government, the TDP and Janasena party people managed the tenders call for in local papers so as to get those renders without any competition. Thereby our State Government is getting heavy loss. Sri B. Srinivas, Ex.Municipal Chair Person, TDP is managed to get the tender in his favour by publishing the tender notice through local news papers. He contested as MLA candidate for 62 – Tadepalligudem Assembly Constituency on behalf of Janasena Party during last elections. Now he again filed the single tender with 8% excess. I therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Minister to cancel the above single tender and issue orders to cause necessary enquiry about the single tender and take action against the persons responsible. I also request the Hon’ble Chief Minister to call for the fresh tender.”

7. The Chief Minister’s office forwarded the said letter to the first respondent and thereafter the second respondent personally approached the first respondent and pressurized them not to appoint Balaji Transport; even though they became L1, the same was not finalized; the said Balaji Transport filed WP No.21562 of 2019 questioning the action of the first respondent in taking steps to re-tender and an interim direction was granted on 02.01.2020 directing the first respondent not to conduct re-auction and during the subsistence of the said interim order the first respondent issued tender notice dated 31.12.2020 with the same basic conditions and as the petitioner is having the required qualifications he wanted to participate in the tender process; at that stage the second respondent again approached the first respondent and forced the first respondent to cancel the said tender and to issue another tender notice by incorporating new conditions which should disqualify the petitioner from participating in the tender process; the first respondent, at the instance of the second respondent, cancelled the tender notice dated 31.12.2020 vide proceedings dated 12.01.2021 and issued the i