THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12783 of 2021

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent No.1, and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for issue of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in particular the 2^nd respondent, for deviating from the conditions of Short Tender Notification in R.C.No.05/AS/TSMFC/2021 issued for ‘selection of registered outsourcing consultancy agency for rendering their services for regulation of payment of remuneration to the outsourcing employees of Telangana State Minorities Finance Corporation’, the 2^nd respondent herein.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent issued Short Tender Notification in R.C.No.05/AS/TSMFC/2021 for the purpose of selection of registered outsourcing consultancy agency for rendering services to them; that pursuant to the aforesaid notification, four outsourcing agencies including the petitioner have applied and participated in the tender process; that as per the notification, the last date for submission of tender was on 19.04.2021 before 12.00 noon; and that the tender was to be opened on the same day at 12.30 pm.

4. Petitioner further contends that the tender required to be submitted is in two parts viz., (i) containing technical bid, and (ii) financial bid and only those agencies who qualified in technical bid are eligible to participate in the financial bid.

5. Petitioner further contends that though the 3^rd respondent did not have technical eligibility at the time of opening of the tender on 19.04.2021 at 12.30 pm, the petitioner had learnt that the 2^nd respondent is likely to consider the 3^rd respondent even though it (i) did not deposit Rs.5,00,000/- towards Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) by way of Demand Draft from any Nationalized Bank in favour of Vice Chairman/Managing Director of the 2^nd respondent, (ii) did not submit documents of registration with EPF/ESI (iii) did not give reference list of any three major clients with complete contact details for whom services were provided during the last three years giving the nature and scope of services, method and technology applied, manpower deployed and total value of the contract and (iv) that the 3^rd respondent is a proprietary concern and not either registered as partnership firm under the Partnership Act or the Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 of 2013 to be eligible to take part as per the stipulated tender condition.

6. Petitioner further contends that though the 2^nd respondent enquired, corresponded with the petitioner to verify the total number of employees on its rolls and had satisfied itself on the basis of the documents filed and also complying with the other tender conditions, though the 3^rd respondent did not meet the aforesaid criteria, the tender is being finalized in favour of the 3^rd respondent even though the said respondent did not comply with the tender conditions.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the documents mentioned in paragraph 6 of the tender notification are basic/primary documents and non-compliance/ non-furnishing of those documents by the 3^rd respondent has caused itself to be disqualified to participate in the Short Tender; and that the 3^rd respondent did not deposit the EMD amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at the time of submitting its bid and in fact, made/deposited the requisite amount of Rs.5,00,000/- after opening of the tender on 19.04.2021 at 12.30 pm, on which ground alone the tender of the 3^rd respondent is to be rejected and that the 2^nd respondent could not have accepted the tender of the 3^rd respondent.

8. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since, the tenders were in two parts i.e. technical bid and financial bid to be submitted before 12.00 noon enclosing therewith the documents mentioned in para