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

2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 42190

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
,
M/s. SV Infratech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. M. Pratheek Reddy
For the Respondents: Sri. R. Pavan Reddy, Sri. M. Kiran Reddy

The tendering authority's decision on eligibility criteria should not be second-guessed, and past experience from a partnership can be considered for a sole proprietorship in tender evaluations.

Headnote:(A) Tendering Process - Principles of Natural Justice - The action of the respondents in selecting the 6th respondent as the successful bidder for multiple tenders was challenged as illegal and arbitrary. The court found that the tendering process was conducted transparently and in accordance with the law, with no violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 1, 16, 17)

(B) Eligibility Criteria - The court upheld the decision of the respondents to accept the 6th respondent's bid, emphasizing that the experience of a sole proprietor can include past experience from a partnership firm. (Paras 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company, contested the selection of the 6th respondent as the successful bidder for various tenders related to maintenance works at Bhadradri Thermal Power Station, alleging that the 6th respondent submitted misleading documents and did not meet eligibility criteria.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the tendering process was lawful, and the respondents acted within their rights in awarding the contracts.

Issues: The primary issues included whether the 6th respondent was eligible to participate in the tender process and if the tendering process was conducted fairly.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the tendering authority's interpretation of eligibility criteria should not be second-guessed, and the experience of the 6th respondent was valid under the law.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to tender selection process. (Para 1 , 4)
2. allegations of fraudulent documentation. (Para 5 , 6)
3. previous successful bidder's claims. (Para 10 , 11)
4. legal basis for tender eligibility. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court's stance on tendering process validity. (Para 15 , 16)

ORDER:

Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the action of Respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 in selecting the 6th respondent as successful bidder in the tenders issued vide NIT No. 15/2023- 24 of SE/E&M-Il/Stg-1/BTPS concerning Bowl Mills of Unit-l, NIT No. 16/2023-24 of SE/E&M-ISUS-UBTPS concerning Bowl Mils of Uhit-2, NIT No. 17/2023-24 of SE/E&M-Il/Stg-I/BPS concerning Gravimetric Raw Coal Feeders in Unit-1 and NIT No. 18/2023-24 of SE/E&M-II/Stg-1/BTPS concerning Gravimetric Raw Coal Feeders in Unit-2 of Bhadradri Thermal Power Station, thereby in entering into agreements with the 6th respondent's sole proprietorship Mars Engineers & Enterprises and in issuing work orders in their favour as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unreasonable, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Sri. M. Pratheek Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri. R. Pavan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 2 to 5 and Sri. M. Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

3. In view of the urgency pleaded by both the parties, present Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in the work of executing contracts for maintenance, care, erection and repairs. The Company has been long associated with the 2nd respondent and has undertaken several erection and maintenance works in the past. It has previously undertaken the maintenance works for Units-I and II for the financial years 2021-22 and 2022-23 at Bhadradri Thermal Power Station (hereinafter referred to as ‘BTPS’). Petitioner executed each and every work that was assigned in the past with utmost diligence and excellence. Petitioner participated in the following tenders in Units-I and II of Bhadradri Thermal Power Station:

a. NIT No. 15/2023-24 of SEEM TUSt-V/BTS: Open tender for “Preventive/Periodical Maintenance works on XP-943 Bowl Mills of Unit as and when required during the year 2023-24" with the bids starting from 15.06.2023 onwards.

b. NIT No. 16/2023-24 of SE/E&M-ll/Stg-1/BPS: Open tender for “Preventive/Periodical Maintenance works on XRP-943 Bowl Mills of Unit-2 as and when required during the year 2023-24" with the bids starting from 15.06.2023 onwards.

c. NIT No. 17/2023-24 of SE/E&M=1/5tBTS: Open Tender For “Preventive/Periodical Maintenance works on Gravimetric Raw Coal Feeders in Unit-l for the year 2023-24" with the bids starting from 16.06.2023 onwards.

d. NIT No. 18/2023-24 of SE/E&M 11/St-I/BTPS: Open tender For "Preventive/Periodical Maintenance works on Gravimetric Raw Coal "Preven in Unit-2 for the year 2023-24" with the bids starting from 16.6.2023.

Similarly, M/s Mars Engineering & Enterprises, a sole proprietorship with the 6th respondent as its Proprietor was also offered to participate in the said tenders. When petitioner viewed the documents submitted by the 6th respondent on behalf of Mars Engineers & Enterprises, it came to know that the said sole proprietorship qualifies in no way whatsoever under the tender document and that documents submitted by it are only misleading, deceptive and inconsonant with the requirements under the tender notifications. Accordingly, petitioner was constrained to issue letter dated 03.06.2023 to the 4th respondent explaining that the 6th respondent’s documents are all deceptive and urging the 4th respondent not to consider M/s Mars Engineers & Enterprises for the said tender bidding. Petitioner also submits that it issued representation on 30.06.2023 and on other dates imploring the respondent authorities to rectify the situation and disqualify the 6th respondent. Whil

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