THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI W.P.NO. 32626 OF 2024

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not allotting the contract to the petitioner firm for undertaking transportation of paddy and gunnies as per the tender notification dated 21.08.2024 e-tender reference No.TGSCSCL/315/Paddy & Gunny Tender for KMS 2024-25 (Khariff and Rabi Crops) and in awarding the said contract to the unofficial respondent i.e., respondent No.4, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to allot the said contract to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that the respondent No.2 has issued e-tender notification dated 21.08.2024 for appointment of contractors for undertaking transportation of paddy and gunnies from various paddy purchase centres/storage points/buffer godowns/wagons to various paddy purchase centres/rice mills and other godowns within the district and outside the district as entrusted by TGSCSCL for KMS 2024-2025 (Khariff and Rabi Crops) from the date of appointment of contractors i.e., from 01.10.2024 to 30.09.2025. The petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 has submitted their bids. However, though the petitioner fulfilled all the required criteria, his case was not considered for award of contract and the same has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though the respondent No.4 has incurred certain disqualifications, the respondents have failed to disqualify him and have considered his tender for award of contract and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner one of the tender conditions was that the “tenderers should offer separate vehicles for each tender and in case they are filing more than one tender and if the same lorries are offered for more than one tender, such tenders filed in whichever district will be rejected out-rightly without any consideration and further that tenders who are filing tender should have atleast have 32 trucks of 17 MTs capacity each out of which, minimum 17 trucks should be owned and 15 trucks should be owned or hired”. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 did not fulfill this condition and had offered a truck which was shown in another tender and therefore, he has to be disqualified under Clause 7(xviii) of the tender condition.

4. At the time of admission of the writ petition, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation, on oral instructions had submitted that the vehicle, which is already part of another contract, even if it is removed from the list, there are sufficient number of other vehicles and therefore, respondent No.4 fulfilled the necessary conditions and therefore, the work orders have already been issued to the respondent No.4.

5. The official respondent as well as the unofficial respondent No.4 have filed their counter affidavits and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has not challenged the contract awarded to the respondent No.4. It is further submitted that the official respondents, even if the vehicle which is already part of another contract is removed, the respondent No.4 has offered a number of vehicles which are required for consideration and therefore, he has been rightly offered the contract. The official respondents also supported this contention.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that as the tender condition under Clause 7(ix) is that “in case tenderer is filing tenders for more than one district/cluster and the vehicles offered in one district/cluster are offered in other districts/cluster, such tender will stand summarily rejected” and further as per the condition under Clause 7(xviii