2021 Supreme(AP) 160

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
U.Durga Prasad Rao, J.
M/s Ramanjaneya Prasanna Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6880 of 2020
Decided On : 28-04-2021

Point of Law:Government contract – Tender - The judicial review on State administrative activities is limited inasmuch as the Constitutional Courts do not sit on appeal as to whether the decision is good and sound or not, but only probe into whether due procedure is followed i.e., whether the acts of authorities are just, fair and reasonable in the matter of allocating contracts

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21 - Violative of principles of natural justice – Employment and service - Experience certificate from competent authorities - Whether due process is followed by 3rd respondent in awarding contract - Whether 3rd respondent has arbitrarily and illegally rejected technical bid of petitioner to favor 4th respondent and if so judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India can be made by this Court to test whether due process is followed by 3rd respondent in awarding contract - Whether such decision would have been taken otherwise in facts and circumstances of case - Whether choice or decision is made lawfully and not to check - Whether choice or decision is sound has ultimately held - Whether process adopted or decision made by authority is mala fide or intended to favor someone - Whether process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that court can say decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached - Notification was issued by 3rd respondent inviting tenders for providing housekeeping mechanized sanitation sweeping and service through e-procurement platform – Earlier similar notification was issued for period and in response thereof petitioner 4th respondent herein and three others submitted their bids – However 3rd respondent cancelled said notification and issued present notification - At present instance petitioner and 4th respondent alone submitted their bids which were evaluated in two phases technical bid evaluation and financial bid evaluation and thereafter 3rd respondent declared that petitioner did not qualify in technical bid and ultimately confirmed tender in favor of 4th respondent who remained as lone contestant –

Finding of the Court:

Petitioner claims experience through certificates said to be issued by Health Officer TTD - On perusal contains two certificates one styled as to whomsoever it may concern said to be issued by Health Officer TTD wherein it is mentioned that petitioner carried out maintenance of cleanliness and sanitation work and work commenced and second certificate dated nil was also in similar lines stating that maintenance of sanitation for blocks done by petitioner was satisfactory - Whether Ex.P.32 certificates were uploaded by petitioner along with tender documents as there is no reference about in counter - Even if certificates are taken into consideration they will not meet requirement because said experience related to period whereas as per Clause out of two years experience one year experience - Quondam experience is of no relevance - Thus on a conspectus of record it is clear that petitioner failed to establish its experience in relevant field as specified in tender notification and therefore 3rd respondent rightly rejected its technical bid - Though petitioner vehemently argued that 3rd respondent showed bias towards 4th respondent it could not substantiate said allegation and hence said contention cannot be countenanced – Similarly petitioner’s further contention that in event a lone tendered was left over authorities have to issue fresh notification also does not hold any merit because 3rd respondent is best person to decide said aspect and Court cannot impinge upon 3rd respondent in that regard - At outset court do not find any merits in writ petition –

Result: Writ petition is dismissed