The court emphasized the need for judicial restraint in interfering with tender processes, especially in matters involving technical issues, and highlighted the limitations of the court's expertise in adjudicating such matters.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition No.13821 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent authorities in tender processing tender vide tender ID:604508 NIT No. SE/ R&B/NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 for the purpose of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII;

(i) in disqualifying petitioners’ technical bid vide orders dated 1.6.2023 and not allowing them to participate in the price bid and reversing tender;

(ii) in allowing the 5th Respondent, who is disqualified technically, in opening of the price bid of the 5th Respondent;

(iii) in awarding the contract for the work of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII in favour of the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and contrary to the bid document and to set aside the same and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities –

(i) to disqualify the 5th respondent as not being the lead partner;

(ii) to cancel the entire tender process including awarding the tender in favour of the 4th respondent;

(iii) to issue fresh tender notification for the work of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF) –XXVIII;

and to pass.….”

2. The Writ Petition No.13821 of 2023 came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent authority in disqualifying technical bids, vide Proceedings Lr.No.NABARD/W&S of R-A road/Evaluation/NRT/ AEEZ/2022, dated 15.05.2023 submitted by the petitioners in response to the Tender ID:604508, NIT No.SE/R&B/ NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 for the work of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem - Amaravathi Road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur district under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the norms of public policy and principles of Natural Justice and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to accept the technical bid of the petitioners and to open the price bid by allowing the petitioners for participating in the reverse tendering process and to pass….”

3. Since the relief claimed in both the petitions is identical, I find that it is appropriate to decide both the writ petitions by common order.

4. The factual matrix in W.P.No.13821 of 2023 is as follows:

In pursuance of the tender notification issued by respondent No.3 vide Tender ID:604508, NIT No.SE/R&B/NABARD/GNT/50/2022-23 dated 27.03.2023 for the purpose of widening and strengthening of Rajupalem – Amaravathi road from KM 3.800 to 49.369 in Guntur District under NABARD (RIDF)-XXVIII, the petitioners have submitted their tenders. The estimated value of the said tender is Rs.117,54,27,724 and the period of completion of the said works is 24 months.

5. The petitioners and two other companies M/s UBS Infra Project Limited (respondent No.5) and M/s VS Engineering Pvt. Limited, Hyderabad (respondent No.4) have filed the tender documents within the stipulated time and in pre-qualification, all the four tenderers are qualified and the technical bids were opened on 03.05.2023. After evaluation on 16.05.2023, the petitioner companies, who have filed the tender documents have been disqualified on the ground that petitioner No.1 has not uploaded all the documents in proof of experience and also not satisfied the condition of minimum executed quantity of C.C. and petitioner No.2 has not enclosed the solvency c