Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Arup Kumar Goswami, Ninala Jayasurya, JJ.
Ravindra Tours and Travels – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
WA No. 92 of 2021
Decided On : 27-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.V. Satish
For the Respondent: V. Ashok Ram and Kalla Tulasi Durgamba
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 52 - Motor Vehicles Rules - Rules 47(1)(g), 115, 124(2) and 127 - Writ appeal - Writ appeal is presented by writ petitioner against judgment and order – Held, argument of learned Counsel for appellant becomes significant in that respondent No. 4 quoted a price less than price quoted by appellant, as he never intended to purchase a vehicle with recliner seats in terms of tender conditions - Learned Single Judge is not correct in holding that deviation, if any, is relating to seating arrangement concerning comfort of employees and it had nothing to do with security of employees, and, therefore, deviation, if any, in seating arrangement is immaterial - When vehicle is purchased by a tenderer without meeting tender conditions at a lower price and subsequently, same is altered in violation of tender conditions in an attempt to comply with tender conditions, such a tenderer, in essence, wants to steal a march over a tenderer who scrupulously follows tender conditions while offering vehicle and quotes price accordingly - When Condition No. 35 clearly mandated that vehicles offered including body, seats etc., should be manufactured by original equipment manufacturer, getting alteration done by Saboo Brothers, cannot validate such alteration, as Saboo Brothers is not original equipment manufacturer - It has to be understood that seating arrangement built by Saboo Brothers is on chassis sold by Force Motors, i.e., manufacturer and, therefore, when such a vehicle is offered, tender, in terms of Condition 35, ought to have been considered invalid. It is clear that in attending facts and circumstances, when vehicle offered does not conform to tender conditions specified, tender of respondent No. 4 shall have to be considered as invalid - In such a situation, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 ought to have considered other tenderers in fray for purpose of award of contract - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
1. This writ appeal is presented by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 16322 of 2020 dismissing the writ petition.
2. Heard Mr. V.V. Satish, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. V. Ashok Ram, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. None appears for respondent No. 1-Union of India and respondent No. 5-Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The appellant and respondent No. 4 responded to a Tender Notification VJABP/PT/01/2020-21/Pickup bus, dated 29.06.2020, issued by respondent No. 3, i.e., the Plant Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Kondapalli Bottling Plant, IDA, Kondapalli, Vijayawada, Krishna District, for positioning and operation of 15+1 seater push-back shift pickup bus for double shift operation at Kondapalli Bottling Plant, Vijayawada. The said notification indicated that contract shall be initially for a period of one year, extendable for two more terms of one year each on the same rates, terms and conditions; the second year at the sole discretion of the Corporation and the third year on mutual consent, subject to satisfactory performance of the contractor. The model of the vehicle, in terms of the Notification, should be not older than 2019 model and it also provided that a tenderer can submit tender attaching proof of booking of new vehicle with the tender and submitting an undertaking to place the vehicle within 15 days of issue of Letter of Intent.
4. The special terms and conditions governing hiring of the pick-up bus, however, provided that the bus should be with minimum of 15+1 seating capacity and that vehicle offered should maintain all in-built features of the offered model in working condition to ensure hygiene and comfort level inside the vehicle.
5. At the time of issuance of the Notification, the appellant was the contractor supplying vehicles to respondent No. 2-Corpoartion. The appellant offered brand new push-back seat vehicle with 15+1 seats and submitted booking order, while respondent No. 4 offered a 'Traveler 3700 Super with High-back seats 17+1 seater'. The respondent-Corporation declared respondent No. 4 as L1, while the appellant was declared as L2. It is stated that after taking delivery of the offered vehicle, respondent No. 4 removed high-back seats and in that place, he got fixed 15 + 1 pushback seats through an outside agency and that such an alteration, besides being in violation of the terms and conditions, is also in contravention of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Accordingly, a representation dated 23.07.2020 was submitted by him to respondent No. 3, in response to which respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 28.07.2020, informed him that respondent No. 4 did not produce the vehicle for inspection and the points raised by him would be scrutinised as per applicability. On 31.07.2020, the appellant was informed that respondent No. 4 would take over operation from 01.08.2020. Since no action has been taken on the representation submitted, the writ petition was filed.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, it is stated that the vehicle offered by respondent No. 4 was modified with push-back seats on 20.07.2020 and the registration certificate and the fitness certificate were issued by respondent No. 5 on 26.07.2020 and 27.07.2020, respectively, and the aforesaid fact demonstrates that the competent authority had validated the legality of the modified vehicle offered by respondent No. 4 and thereafter only, being satisfied, work order dated 31.08.2020 was issued for a period of one year. It is stated that modified vehicle offered by respondent No. 4 had 18 seats (15 push-back seats + 3 extra seats) and such seats were meant for driver, cleaner and one extra seat. In Paragraph 6, it was stated as follows:
"It is further submitted that the 4th respon
