The rejection of a tender bid without justification violates natural justice principles while the court upholds the necessity of adhering to defined tender requirements.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara)

Heard Sri T.Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants and Sri Tarun G.Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and

2. Perused the record.

2. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the appellants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.21689 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge of this Court declaring the action of the appellants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 in rejecting the tender bid of the respondents/writ petitioners in respect of tender No.TGMDC/S&M/DSLT/JB/2024/225, dated 14.06.2024 for de-siltation of 15,52,923 MT of sand from Beglur/2024/1 sand reach at Jayashankar Bhupalpally District as illegal for not assigning reasons, the award of tender No.TGMDC/S&M/DSLT/JB/2024/225, dated 14.06.2024 in favour of respondent No.3 has been set aside and the writ appellants are directed to call for fresh bids in respect of tender No.TGMDC/S&M/DSLT/JB/2024/225, dated 14.06.2024.

3. The background facts of the case are that the writ appellant No.2 floated tender No.TGMDC/S&M/DSLT/JB/2024/225, dated Beglur/2024/1 sand reach at Jayashankar Bhupalpally District and that the said tender was floated for a contract value of approximately Rs.15,06,33,531/-. Respondent No.1 represented by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 participated in the bid. The bid was awarded in favour of respondent No.3 as per the award dated 19.07.2024. The bid submitted by respondent No.1 has been rejected as per the information provided in the Telangana e-procurement portal.

4. The rejection of their bid is challenged by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the premise that the writ appellants did not conduct the tender process and awarding of the tender in fair and transparent manner by referring to the legal ratios laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dharmapal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others , [(2015)8 SCC 519], PKF Sridhar and Santhanam v. Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (WP(C) No.12385 of 2021), Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, [14.06.2024 for de-siltation of 15,52,923 MT of sand from] and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. EMTA Coal Limited and others, (2022)2 SCC 1 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 primarily questioned the action of writ appellants in rejecting the tender without assigning reasons and

without giving them hearing for giving clarification on their Work Done Certificate. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition referring to various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India holding that decision making process adopted by the writ appellants is contrary to principles of natural justice and lacking in transparency in the tender process. It is held that no reason is assigned for rejecting respondent No.1’s bid as failing to have fulfilled clause 3.2 tender conditions. In the light of the respondent No.1’s specific case that it fulfilled the requirement under clause 3.2 of the tender conditions. It is held that as per the entry made in e-procurement web portal on 19.07.2024, the writ appellants have clearly observed that respondent No.1 has fulfilled the eligibility criteria referring to the contents of Remarks column which are extracted and produced below:

5. Further, the learned Single Judge held that the writ appellants have failed to give an opportunity to respondent No.1 to give clarification in case of any ambiguity about the contents of the Work Done Certificate. Lastly, the learned Single Judge also referred to the writ appellants issuing Letter of Intent to respondent No.3 on 10.07.2024 and the award of ten