Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 520
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
M/s K.S.R. Constructions - Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy General Manager (Contracts & Materials) And another - Respondents
W.P. No. 16442 of 2023
Decided On : 03-10-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Vedula Srinivas, Sr Designated counsel, Rep. J.Govardhan Reddy
For the Respondent: Ms Sudha
Headnote:
Mandamus - Bid Rejection - Tender Qualification Requirements - [Transportation of Pond Ash] - [Clause V(1.0) of Bid No. GEM/2023/B/3210393] - The court discussed the technical criteria specified in the tender notice, particularly Clause V(1.0), and the interpretation of the qualifying requirements for bidders. The court highlighted the requirement for the value of work executed in the preceding seven years from the date of Techno-commercial bid opening and the petitioner's failure to meet the qualification requirements. The court also considered the plea of the petitioner regarding the absence of 'Financial Year' in the technical criteria and the respondent's territorial jurisdiction argument. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a registered construction firm, filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to challenge the rejection of its bid for a rate contract for transportation of Pond Ash from NTPC, Ramagundam to NHAI Road Construction Projects. The petitioner claimed to have met the technical qualification requirements of the tender but was informed by the 1st respondent that it did not meet the qualifying requirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to meet the qualification requirements as per the technical criteria specified in the tender notice. The court also opined that the petitioner did not establish a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the interpretation of the technical criteria specified in the tender notice, the petitioner's failure to meet the qualification requirements, and the respondent's territorial jurisdiction argument.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondents and dismissed the writ petition. The court also opined that the petitioner did not meet the qualification requirements as per the technical criteria specified in the tender notice.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the respondents. The interim order passed earlier was vacated, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending were closed without any order as to costs.
ORDER :
Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned senior designated counsel representing the counsel on record, Mr J. Goverdhan Reddy, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, and Ms Sudha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of Respondents more particularly Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in not considering the bid of Petitioner firm pursuant to the Bid No. GEM/2023/B/3210393 dated 09.03.2023 for rate contract for transportation of Pond Ash from NTPC, Ramagundam to NHAI Road Construction Projects is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of principles of Natural Justice and consequently to Direct the Respondent No. 1 to consider the Bid of the Petitioner firm pursuant to the Bid No. GEM/2023/B/3210393 dated 09.03.2023 for rate contract for transportation of Pond Ash from NTPC, Ramagundam to HAI Road Construction Projects.
3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is as follows:
a) The Petitioner is a registered construction firm having registered under Registrar of Firms vide Firm No. 250/2008 and having its registered office at #2-10-2046, Bhagyanagar, Karimnagar, Telangana – 505002.The 1st respondentherein had called for tenders for transportation of Pond Ash from NIPC, Ramagundam to NHAI Road Construction Projects under Bid No. GEM/2023/B/3210393 dated 09.03.2023 with scope of work along with certain terms and conditions which are mentioned in the Bid document.
b) In the said Bid Document there is a notice inviting tender for Rate Contract for transportation of Pond Ash from NTPC, Ramagundam to NHAI road construction projects and according to the said notice the Petitioner herein within Bid validity time had filed his Bid for the said contract by filing all his work completion certificates and necessary documents as per the technical qualification requirements of the said Tender dated 27.04.2023.
c) After filing the Bid, the Petitioner herein had received an E-mail dated 23.05.2023 from the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner herein had replied vide E-Mail dated 25.05.2023 to consider another experience certificate dated 15.03.2023 which is with a tender contract value of Rs.73,66,45,641/- and as on the subject tender notice the said work was completed till Rs.45,29,14,622/ - which experience is sufficient for meeting qualifying requirement of Tender.
d) Thereafter, the 1st Respondent had replied stating that, as per tender provision: (Attachment-3: Bidder's Qualifications) The reference works whose details have been declared in their bid shall only be considered to ascertain the bidder's compliance to the specified qualifying Requirement (QR). Any other document which has not been submitted along with the bid shall not be considered for evaluation. With the above, KS Constructions is not meeting the Qualifying Requirement.
e) More so, the earlier experience certificate submitted by the Petitioner along with the bid of Road Widening of Single lane to Double lane from (1) PWD (Chandrampet) road to Marrimadla (Via) Konaraopet Mandal (0/0 to 27/5 to 32/6 kms in Karimnagar District for which the start of work date is 19.01.2016 and completion of work dated is 30.03.2018 with a total value of Rs.32,11,23,091/- is self-sufficient and meets the technical criteria as per the Tender Notice.
f) However, the 1st Respondent has calculated the same from Financial year of 2016 instead of Calendar year of 2016 and excluded the work done from January to March, 2016 in turn and had removed an amount of Rs.89,72,837/- from the said total work done, by stating that the said work comes under financial year of 2015 - 2016 and refused the bid of Petitioner. Thus, if the said amount of Rs.89,72,837 / - work done between January to March, 2016 is removed
