SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
Garapati Constructions – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12429 of 2021
Decided On : 17-09-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: GP, Koti Reddy Idamakanti, SC, M. Manohar Reddy, SC and M. Siva Kumar

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 - Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Invitation and Acceptance of Tenders for works and purchases) Rules, 2000 - Rule 17, Rule 17(b) - Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 - Invitation of tenders by Executive Authority – Writ petition has been filed to declare action of respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 in calling for tenders vide tender Notice, by way of offline sealed tenders, instead of e-procurement tenders for purpose of construction of 2 lakhs capacity of water tank - Held, Court opines that entire tender process from publication of tender notification in newspaper to execution of work is taken up with malafide intention by Panchayat Secretary of 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat to do undue favour to 9th respondent - As and when State Government is taking steps to merge 5th respondent-Gram Panchayat into Y.S.R. Tadigadapa Municipality, it is not understandable, what is hurry to 5th respondent to issue such tender notification at fag end of its merger, if there is no intention to do undue favour to 9th respondent - In considered opinion of Court even though 5th respondent issued tender notification as per Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Invitation and Acceptance of Tenders for works and purchases) Rules, 2000, procedure provided under Rule 17 is not followed - On that ground also this tender process has to be set aside - respondents and material available on record, 9th respondent executed some work after declaring him as successful bidder and stalling construction at this stage is against to public interest – Court are unable to accept said contention - As and when tender process was initiated and finalized in contrary to procedure, with malafide intention, arbitrarily and there is loss to public exchequer due to procedure adopted by 5th respondent, continuing construction work with 9th respondent is not warranted - To protect interest of public, unfinished water tank shall take over by 6th respondent-Municipality and to take steps to complete work by departmentally or by calling for tenders for unfinished work by following due process of law - If 9th respondent feels that he sustained any loss, it is open for him to initiate appropriate proceedings as per law - Writ petition allowed.

ORDER :

Battu Devanand, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 in calling for tenders vide tender Notice, dated 26.12.2020 by way of offline sealed tenders, instead of e-procurement tenders for the purpose of construction of 2 lakhs capacity of water tank in Prabhunagar, Poranki Gram Panchayat area, Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District for Rs. 58 lakh as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of the relevant Government Rules and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the tender notice, dated 26.12.2020 issued vide R.O.C. No. 649/2020 and direct the official respondents to call for tenders by way of e-procurement platform as per the relevant Rules and Government Orders.

2. Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for 5th respondent, Sri M. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 6th respondent, learned Government Pleader for PR & RD appearing for 7th respondent, Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel representing Sri M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the 9th respondent on record. Perused the material available on record.

3. The facts of the case of the petitioner are;

    (i) That the 5th respondent issued a Tender Notice vide R.O.C. No. 649/2020, dated 26.12.2020, by calling offline sealed tenders for the purpose of construction of 2 lakh liters water tank in Prabhu Nagar, Poranki Gram Panchayat area, Krishna District, wherein it is stated that the tender schedule will be in between 11.01.2021 from morning 10 a.m. to evening 5 p.m. and the EMD was fixed as Rs. 58,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as the application fee. Though the date of the tender notice was shown as 26.12.2020, the same has been published in the "SAKSHI" newspaper on 08.01.2021 and the tender schedule was fixed as 11.01.2021.

(ii) As per the procedure contemplated, there shall not be any offline sealed tenders and all the Government works, where the value of the work is over and above Rs. 5 lakh shall be by way of e-tenders. But, without calling e-tenders and without placing the present tender in e-portal, the respondent No. 5 with the active support of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, has purposefully called the offline sealed tenders by violating the settled Government norms and Rules with a view of benefit the unofficial respondent.

(iii) Due to illegal and highhanded acts of the respondents, the petitioner and other various intending bidders could not participate in the tender process. The 9th respondent has submitted his tender and he was the sole person, who participated in the tender process and his tender was accepted and entrusted the work as specified in the tender notice, dated 26.12.2020.

(iv) Therefore, there is a clear collusion in between the official respondents and unofficial respondent and out of their collusion only the said tenders were called for and many other intending parties including the petitioner were debarred from participating in the tender process and the valuable public money was spoiled only to benefit the unofficial respondent. Hence, the action of the respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 in calling for offline tenders vide tender notice, dated 26.12.2020 instead of e-procurement tenders and accepting single bid and conferring the work to the unofficial respondent is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and thereby set aside the tender notice, dated 26.12.2020.

4. Counter-affidavits of Respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 9 have been filed.

    (a) In the counter-affidavit of 4th respondent, it is averred that on the representation of residents of Prabhu Nagar area in Poranki Gram Panchayat to the 5th respondent for construction of PWS water tank in their area, the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat,

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top