Point of law: Supreme Court held that any contract of public service should not be interfered with lightly and in any case, there should not be any interim order derailing entire process of services meant for larger public good; grant of interim injunction by Court would help no one except a contractor, who has lost a contract bid but would only cause loss to State with no corresponding gain to anyone.

JUDGMENT:

(Ujjal Bhuyan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. A.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. B.Narayan Reddy, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 (writ petitioner); and Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General for respondents No.2 to 5.

2. This intra-court appeal has been filed assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.29606 of 2022.

3. Respondent No.1 as the writ petitioner has filed the related writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of Respondent No.4 in-

a. disqualifying the bid submitted by the petitioner submitted in response to the e-NIT. No.8/ ENC(R)/ MDK/ EE(R)/ DEE6/AEE /2022 dated 11.05.2022 and in not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to cure a curable deficiency in the technical bid, despite repeated representations;

b. approving the deficient technical bid of respondent No.5 submitted in response to the e-NIT. No.8/ENC(R)/MDKJ/EE(R)/DEE6/ AEE/2022 dated 11.05.2022 without considering the representations submitted by the petitioner bringing to their notice the said deficiencies as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded, violative of Articles 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India; and further direct Respondent No.4 to award the contract to the petitioner by considering the price bid submitted by the petitioner herein and pass such other order or orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

4. Be it stated that respondent No.5- Superintending Engineer (R&B), Sangareddy District, had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 11.05.2022 for construction of ‘four lane road from IDA Pashamailaram industrial park to ORR (Patancheru – Shankarpally road junction) from km.0/0 to 4/658 in Sangareddy District’. The estimated contract value is Rs.32,87,22,353.00 and the period of completion of work is eighteen months. As per the NIT, submission of bids would commence from 13.05.2022 at 5:00 p.m. and would close on 30.05.2022 at 3.30 p.m. Date for opening of technical bid was fixed on 30.05.2022 at 4:00 p.m., and date for opening of price bid was fixed on 02.06.2022 at 4:00 p.m.

5. The bids were submitted online. At the time of technical evaluation, bid of respondent No.1 was rejected on the ground that the required experience certificate of respondent No.1 did not show the counter signature of Superintending Engineer (R&B). Thereafter, price bids were opened on 05.06.2022. Appellant herein was found to be the sole technically qualified bidder. He was declared as the successful bidder at 4.23% above the estimated value. Respondent No.1 made a representation before respondent No.3- Commissioner of Tenders on 06.06.2022 requesting the said authority to instruct respondent No.5 to open its price bid. Notwithstanding the same, Letter of Intent (LoI) was issued by respondent No.5 in favour of the appellant on 11.05.2022. It was at that stage that respondent No.1 preferred the related writ petition seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

6. Learned Single Judge by the order dated 19.07.2022, took a prima facie view that exclusion of respondent No.1 on the ground of incomplete transmission of experience certificate and proceeding with the single tender even though at a higher cost was not justified. Accordingly, the contract awarded in favour of the appellant has been interdicted by granting stay. However, learned Single Judge clarified that interim stay granted should not be construed as precluding the State from initiating tender process afresh by following the due process of law, if so advised.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on a reading of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is evident that learned Single Judge had