Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 106
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Muddaboina Ravi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP/1362/2024
The court upheld the legality of the e-Procurement tender process, finding no violation of government orders aimed at benefiting local scheduled tribes, and emphasized the right to challenge such processes.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Fifth Schedule - Challenge to e-Procurement tender for civil works - Petitioner contended that the tender process violated G.O.Rt.No.109, GOMs.No.48, and GOMs.No.30 aimed at benefiting local scheduled tribes - Respondents argued compliance with regulations and that the tender process was legal - Court found no illegality in the tender process as works were sanctioned appropriately and no violation of G.Os. occurred. (Paras 1-9)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that participation in the tender process does not negate the right to challenge its legality - The court also clarified that the judgments cited by the petitioner did not support the case. (Paras 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the e-Procurement tender process for civil works worth Rs.75 Crores, alleging it did not comply with government orders aimed at uplifting local scheduled tribes. The respondent authorities maintained that the tender process was lawful and adhered to existing guidelines.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents followed the necessary guidelines and upheld the legality of the tender process.
Issues: The main issues included whether the tender process violated government orders meant for local scheduled tribes and the legality of the tendering process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the tender process adhered to the prescribed government orders and that the petitioner’s participation in the tender did not preclude them from seeking judicial review of the process.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
The petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by assailing the action of respondents in allotting Medaram Jathara Civil works for the year 2024 through e-Procurement tender procedure for works of estimated cost of below Rs.50 lakhs as illegal and arbitrary and violative of G.O.Rt.No.109, Tribal Welfare (Bud &Edn) Department, dated 18.06.2021, GOMs.No.48, Social Welare (SCP-II) Department dated 22.08.2023 and GOMs.No.30, Social Welfare (V2) Department dated 17.02.1994 and violative of Article 224 read with Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India . The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to cancel the e-procurement tender s for the value of Rs.75 Crores sanctioned by respondent No.2 under G.O.Rt.No.297, Tribal Welfare (Bud &Edn) Department dated 15.12.2023 which is referred in respondent No.4 proceedings in Rc.No.A1/MJ/69/2020 dated 21.12.2023; and call for fresh tenders by following the G.O.Rt.No.109, Tribal Welfare (Bud &Edn) Department, dated
18.06.2021, GOMs.No.48, Social Welare (SCP-II) Department dated 22.08.2023 and GOMs.No.30, Social Welfare (V2) Department dated 17.02.1994.
2. Heard Sri Ramesh Babu Vishwanathula, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Hyderabad Law Firm, for the petitioner; and Sri R. Chandrashekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat Raj; and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare; and learned Government Pleader for General Administration.
3. The crux of the case of the petitioner as per the writ affidavit is that a sum of Rs.75 Crores were allotted towards civil works by the 2nd respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.297, TW (Bud &Edn) Dept., dated 15.12.2023 and the 4th respondent has given directions to all engineering departments to send work proposals for conducting Sammakka Saralamma festival; and the 9 th respondent sent proposal of estimation of works. The 4 th respondent sanctioned Rs.528 lakhs vide proceedings dated 21.12.2023 and most of the works are below Rs.10 lakhs but the respondents have not allotted works to local scheduled tribes under G.O.Ms.No.30 and R.O.Rt.No.109. The 7th respondent issued e-Procurement tender notification for Rs.1474.90 lakhs and the 4th respondent sanctioned the said amount and no opportunity was given for local scheduled tribes. The 6 th respondent has given e-procurement tender notice and some of the works are below 50 lakhs but no opportunity was given to local scheduled tribes. In the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the Government adopted e-procurement process for tribal welfare and social welfare engineering departments issued GOMs No.48 dated 22.08.2023 adopting that e-procurement shall be adopted in all circles of tribal welfare engineering department and of social welfare department engineering wing in respect of works coming under the purview of Chief Engineer (TW) costing more than Rs.50 lakhs taken up with State/Central Government funds (including NABARD). It is the grievance of the petitioner that the purport of the above mentioned G.Os., to allot works to local scheduled tribes for their uplift and benefit is being defeated by the impugned e-procurement tender process whereunder the respondent authorities could have split up the works so that the local tribes could access the system and participated in the tender process.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making submissions along the lines of writ affidavit primarily contends that the action of the respondents in opting for e-procurement system for works estimating even below Rs.50 lakhs is against the spirit of fifth schedule of the Constitution of India as the local schedule tribes cannot access the system, and further if the bulk works are divided into small units then the tribal unemployed youth will get benefited but the respondents are not considering the above G.Os., which are meant for uplift of scheduled tribes. Learned counsel relied on Samatha v. State of A.P. 1and Union of India v. Rake
