SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Online)(AP) 31

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
, J
Lanco Constructions Limited – Appellant
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1234 of 1998



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. E. Manohar
For the Respondents: Ms. G. Rohini

The cancellation of tenders must be supported by concrete evidence to avoid arbitrariness, ensuring compliance with Article 14's principles of fairness and transparency.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Judicial review in administrative action - Tender rejection by government on grounds of alleged fraudulent practices - Court held that the government's actions were arbitrary and illegal due to lack of substantiated reasons, and violated the principles of fair play, emphasizing the need for proper evaluation of tenders by the competent authority. (Paras 1, 4, 18, 19).

(B) Tendering Process - The process of canceling a tender must be based on material evidence and not mere allegations, ensuring transparency and accountability in public dealings. (Paras 6, 18).

(C) Procedural Fairness - Even where the government has the discretion to reject tenders, it must provide valid reasons when rejecting the lowest bid, as per established legal principles. (Paras 12, 18).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their bid for a government irrigation project after being informed of allegations of corruption and fraud without sufficient evidence. The petitioner claimed the rejection was motivated by political rivalry.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the petitioner’s tender was arbitrary, lacking justifiable grounds or due process, and directed the government to allow the Commissioner of Tenders to assess the bids objectively.

Issues: Whether the government's cancellation of tender violated Article 14 of the Constitution due to lack of transparency and due process?

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that administrative decisions must be based on concrete evidence and adhere to principles of fairness, recognizing that even if the government holds discretionary powers, such discretion must not be wielded arbitrarily.

Result: Writ petition allowed; government directed to reevaluate bids.

Table of Content
1. writ petition challenges the rejection of the tender. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on legality of tender cancellation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. judicial review parameters in contractual matters. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. directions on fair communication of reasons for tender rejection. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. government's power must be exercised fairly. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. judgment allows writ petition with directions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

1. The proceedings issued by the 5th Respondent No. SE / SRBC - 3 / Ndl / DB / D1 / F.P. / 12/320 M dated 18-12-1998 rejecting the tender of the petitioner is assailed in this writ petition.

2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows :
The World Bank has released certain funds to the Government of Andhra Pradesh towards the construction of Irrigation Projects. Accordingly, various irrigation projects were notified by the Government for construction. Srisailam Right Bank Canal is one such project, which is constructed with the credit assistance with the World Bank. The 5th respondent invited National competitive Bidding on 16-10-1997 for "work of construction of Owk Reservoir Complex from Km 116.481 to Km. 119.717 of SRBC comprising of Paleru Earth Dam, Gollaleru Earth Dam with Spillway and Thimmaraj Earth Dam with Head Regulator" (hereinafter called Package XII). Number of intending bidders obtained the tender documents and submitted their respective bids to the 5th respondent. It is submitted that the Bids received in pursuance of the tender notification were scrutinized and the bid offered by the petitioner was found to be lowest and therefore the 5th respondent recommended the bid of the petitioner. It is also stated that the Chief Engineer has also recommended the case to the Commissionerate of Tenders, the 3rd respondent herein, who is the final authority in the finalisation of tenders.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent - Commissionerate did not scrutinize the tenders and the matter was transmitted to the State Government on the directions of the State Government, and ultimately the present impugned orders are passed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that news item was published in Vaartha Telugu Daily on 1-11-1997 that the World Bank did not agree to the request of the Government for rejection of all the bids in respect of package XII. But, however, the Government pursued the matter with the sole idea of depriving the allotment of work to the petitioner, the said action is illegal and contrary to public interest. It is also stated that on account of political rivalry, the Government has adopted such an attitude. Even in the Legislative Assembly, this matter was discussed. It is stated that the Honourable Minister for Major Irrigation reported to the House that there was no cartel and the apprehension was baseless. The petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal and bereft of reasons and also violative of the Art. 14 of the Constitution of India . It is also stated that it is not in the public interest that the bid should be cancelled. Therefore, the writ petition is laid for quashing the order and for consequential directions.

5. The Government have filed the Counter stating that under Clause 32.1 of the Information for Bidders, the Government reserves the right to accept or reject any bid and to cancel the bidding process. It was denied that on account of political rivalry, the present impugned order has been issued. In fact the sister concerns of the petitioner company was allotted a major work for constructing power project at Kondapally. But, however, it is stated by the Government that on receipt of the credible information that fraudulent practice took place in regard to the tendering process of the package XII. On investigation, it was found that the fraudulent practices had been indulged and in public interest the Government considered it necessary that the entire tendering proce







































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top