Judicial review in tender processes is confined to ensuring decisions are lawful and not arbitrary; experience qualifications may include past experiences from former partnerships under certain interpretations.

ORDER

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. - The Present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 in selecting the 6threspondent as the successful bidder in the tender issued vide NIT.No e-03/2023-24/SE/STAGE-II/BTPS/D.No.78/22-23 dated 18.04.2023 for the work 'Preventive/Periodical Maintenance Works on Mills for the FY 2023-24 in Bowl Mills of Unit IV BTPS'and entering into an agreement with the 6th respondent and issuing a work order in his favour, as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unreasonable, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Sri. M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. R. Pavan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5 and Sri M. Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

3. In view of the urgency pleaded by both the parties, the present Writ Petition has been taken up for final disposal.

4. Petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and engaged in the work of executing works / contracts for maintenance, care, erection and repairs. The Company has been long associated with the 2nd respondent and has undertaken several erections and maintenance works in the past. It has previously undertaken maintenance works for Units-I and II for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 at Bhadradri Thermal Power Station [BTPS]. In April, 2023, petitioner was offered to participate in a single-part limited tender concerning EPC works in Unit IV of BTPS vide NIT No. e - 03/ 2023-24/SE/STAGEII/BTPS/D.No.78/22-23, dated 18.04.2023 for the work of "Preventive / Periodical Maintenance Works on Mills for the FY 2023-24" for an estimated procurement value of Rs.10,75,626/-. As stated, tender has only a single part i.e., price bid and does not have a prior pre-qualification or technical evaluation stages. Similarly, Mars Engineering& Enterprises, a sole proprietorship with the 6th respondent as its proprietor, was also offered to participate in the said tender. Petitioner executed each and every work that was assigned in the past with the utmost diligence and excellence.

It is stated, when petitioner viewed the documents submitted by the 6threspondent on behalf of Mars Engineers& Enterprises, it w a s realised that the said sole proprietorship qualifies in no way whatsoever under the tender document and that documents submitted by it are only misleading, deceptive and inconsonant with the requirements under the NIT dated 18.04.2023. Accordingly, petitioner was constrained to issue the letter dated 03.06.2023 to the 4threspondent not to consider Mars Engineers & Enterprises for the said tender bidding. However, without giving any notice or proceedings, the 2ndrespondent represented by the 5threspondent has chosen the 6threspondent's tender bid, surreptitiously entered into a contract with it and even issued a work order in its favour pursuant. The 6th respondent performed certain religious rituals on 28.06.2023 and began work in Unit-IV on the same day.

It is stated that aggrieved by the arbitrary action of the 5th respondent in collusion with the 6th respondent, petitioner had even approached the 2nd respondent on 30.06.2023 and several other dates with representation dated 30.06.2023 imploring the said authority to rectify the situation by recalling the proceedings, contracts and orders issued in favour of the 6th respondent and to reprocess the tender in a fair and rational manner. While several assurances were given to petitioner by the different officials working in the 2nd respondent that situation would be remedied and petitioner was only disillusioned