APHC010189932023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 9694/2023 Between:

Adapa Venkata Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT

2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order:

Questioning the disqualification of the petitioner in the technical bid in Tender Procurement vide Tender Id No.602049 in the name of “O&M of CPWS scheme to Chundi and 10 other habitations in Kandukur Constituency for the year 2023-24 with an estimated cost of Rs.31,59,932/-”, without assigning any reasons, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Venkareswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the Gram Panchayat and Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant government pleader for Panchayat Raj Department.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while re-iterating the contents of the writ affidavit submitted that, the petitioner is a Class-I civil contractor and used to execute works of R & B Department, Panchayat Raj Department and other Government Departments more particularly laying of roads and sewage works etc. He further submitted that, the 5^th respondent called for tenders in Tender Id No.602049 in the name of “O&M of CPWS scheme to Chundi and 10 other habitations in Kandukur Constituency for the year 2023-24 with an estimated cost of Rs.31,59,932/-” and the petitioner has also participated in the said tender process and was disqualified without expressing any reasons.

He further submitted that the when the petitioner questioned the respondents about his disqualification in the technical bid, it was informed that as per clause 17.1 of the tender conditions, the petitioner was disqualified. He further submitted that, except the said reason, no other valid reasons were stated by the respondents. He further submitted that, if such action is allowed to materialize, the petitioner’s right to participate in the tender would be defeated apart from rights guaranteed under the constitution. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant government pleader for Panchayat Raj Department submitted that, as the petitioner has not complied with the conditions of the previous work allotted to him, the authorities have disqualified the petitioner from the tender process, as such, there is no irregularity in disqualifying the petitioner in bid evaluation and the petitioner has not made out any case warranting the interference of this court. He further submitted that, even otherwise, the scope of the writ jurisdiction in tender matters is limited and further, the petitioner did not establish any arbitrariness or malafideness on the part of the respondents. As such the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel.

6. It is not in dispute that the 5^th respondent has called for tender vide Tender Id No.602049 in the name of “O&M of CPWS scheme to Chundi and 10 other habitations in Kandukur Constituency for the year 2023-24 with an estimated cost of Rs.31,59,932/-” and the petitioner has also participated in the said tender. The prime grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have disqualified his technical bid without assigning any valid reasons intentionally, in order to benefit the other bidders who are close to the local political leaders. The contention advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the scope of the judicial review is very limited and unless the petitioner specifically p