A joint venture ceases to exist if one partner withdraws, affecting tender eligibility.

1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh decided to improve the irrigation facilities in the State and therefore, took up medium size projects. All these projects had to be completed within a period of five years. The Government also proposed to divide various works into convenient packages so as to invite tenders for Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) on turn key system including investigation, design, preparation of construction of projects, cost estimates, construction, maintenance and operation for one irrigation system. The Government also decided to take up the tender process in two stages. In the first stage it would empanel a specified number of special class civil contractors by inviting offers for pre-qualification to tender for the projects and in the second stage it proposed to invite tenders from empanelled concerns/firms/companies to take up water resources projects on EPC turn key basis. After the tenders were received, the bids had to be verified by high power committee appointed by the Government.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in WP No. 11391 of 2005 (Appellant in WA No. 1360 of 2005) was that he was empanelled, he submitted his tender for packages 90, 91 and 98 and he was found to be lowest tenderer-L 1. However, the respondents were not entering into an agreement with him, therefore he sought a direction that the respondents may be directed to enter into an agreement with him with respect to packages 90, 91 and 98.

3. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned single Judge, ordered for fresh tender because he found the writ petitioner to be not eligible and he also found that if the works were allotted to the persons who had offered the next best rate, there would be sufficient loss to the Government exchequer with respect to packages 90, 91 and 98. The learned single Judge found that there would be a difference of Rs. 8,48,00,000/- between L1 (petitioner) and L2 and Rs. 62,23,00,000/- between L1 (petitioner) and L3 with respect to package 90, the difference between L1 (petitioner) L2 would be Rs. 7,20,00,000/- and Rs. 15,15,00,000/- between L1 (petitioner) and L3 in respect of package 91 and it would be Rs. 2,09,99,997/- between L1 (petitioner) and L2 and Rs. 3,17,00,097/- between L1 (petitioner) and L3 in respect of package 98. The learned single Judge found that if the works of all these three packages were allotted to L2, the total difference would be Rs. 17,77,99,997/-, therefore he ordered for fresh tender.

4. The companies-L2 and L3 who got affected by the order of learned single Judge filed petitions seeking leave to file appeals and they have filed WA Nos. 1390 and 1395 of 2005. All the three writ appeals are being disposed of together.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The controversy is very short. Counter-affidavit was filed by 2nd respondent-Engineer-in-Chief in the writ petition. Most of the facts are not in dispute and have almost been accepted. Coming to the writ petition itself, certain facts have been admitted by the petitioner himself in his affidavit as well. The petitioner submitted that the petitioner concern i.e. M/s. GVPR Engineers Ltd. signed a joint venture agreement with M/s. Megha Engineering Enterprises for the purpose of submitting an application for pre-qualification pursuant to the tender notice No. 2, dated 13-8-2004. The joint venture authorized the petitioner and petitioner's company to sign the pre-qualification documents and the documents submitted by them were accepted. By G. O. Ms. No. 727, Irrigation and C.A.D. (PPMU) Department