Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK
S.Kireetendranath Reddy - Appellant
Versus
A.P.TRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 08-17-99
TENDER - DISQUALIFICATION - WORK EXPERIENCE - PARTNERSHIP FIRM - DISSOLUTION - EXPERIENCE OF PARTNERS - WHETHER CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO FIRM - WHETHER EXPERIENCE OF PARTNERS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS EXPERIENCE OF FIRM - WHETHER EXPERIENCE OF FIRM CAN BE INDEPENDENT OF EXPERIENCE OF PARTNERS - EQUALITY CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 14 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - WHETHER RESPONDENTS ARE JUSTIFIED IN DISQUALIFYING PETITIONER FROM CONSIDERATION FOR AWARD OF CONTRACTS ON GROUND OF LACK OF WORK EXPERIENCE - HELD, EXPERIENCE IS PERSONAL, CONCRETE AND ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PERSON, WHETHER NATURAL OR LEGAL - EXPERIENCE OF FIRM CANNOT BE INDEPENDENT OF EXPERIENCE OF PARTNERS - EXPERIENCE GAINED BY PETITIONER AS PARTNER OF DISSOLVED FIRM IS HIS OWN EXPERIENCE - RESPONDENTS ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISQUALIFYING PETITIONER FROM CONSIDERATION FOR AWARD OF CONTRACTS ON GROUND OF LACK OF WORK EXPERIENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner and one Sri P. Radha Krishna Reddy, hereinafter referred to as PRR, for the sake of brevity, constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Aditya Transmission on 20-11-1991 with equal shares. The partnership firm was involved in the execution of the work of erection of the transmission lines mainly of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, for short APSEB, the predecessor of the TRANSCO which came into being in the place of APSEB with effect from 1-2-1999. Due to some personal problems and inconvenience experienced by the partners, the firm was dissolved with effect from 3-10-1997, and in that regard, an agreement for dissolution of partnership was executed between the partners on 4-8-1997 at Hyderabad. Till the firm was dissolved with effect from 3-10-1997, the partners in the name of the firm executed as many as nine transmission lines with APSEB. Both the partners jointly and actively involved in the execution of the works, gained rich experience and high degree of efficiency in the execution of transmission line works. After the dissolution of the firm, the petitioner and PRR have not entered into any partnership agreements with any other agency or person. Though one of the clauses in the Dissolution Deed authorised PRR to carry out the business of the firm by admitting any third person of his choice into the firm, PRR has not admitted any other person as partner of the firm. However, PRR is carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s. Aditya Transmission, as a proprietary concern.
Finding of the Court:
1. Experience is personal, concrete and attributable to a person, whether natural or legal. 2. Experience of a firm cannot be independent of the experience of the partners who compose it. 3. Experience gained by the petitioner as a partner of the dissolved firm M/s. Aditya Transmission is, in reality, his own experience. 4. The respondents are not justified in disqualifying the petitioner from consideration for award of contracts on the ground of lack of work experience.
Issues: 1. Whether the experience of the partners of a dissolved firm can be attributed to the firm? 2. Whether the experience of a firm can be independent of the experience of the partners who compose it? 3. Whether the respondents are justified in disqualifying the petitioner from consideration for award of contracts on the ground of lack of work experience?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Experience is personal, concrete and attributable to a person, whether natural or legal. 2. Experience of a firm cannot be independent of the experience of the partners who compose it. 3. Experience gained by the petitioner as a partner of the dissolved firm M/s. Aditya Transmission is, in reality, his own experience. 4. The respondents are not justified in disqualifying the petitioner from consideration for award of contracts on the ground of lack of work experience.
Final Decision: Writ petition allowed. Direction issued to the respondents not to disqualify the petitioner from consideration for the award of contracts in respect of LOT-1 and LOT-4 covered by the package No. WB/apseb/tr/rs-20 solely on the ground that the petitioner lacks the prescribed work-experience.
( 1 ) THE question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the Management of the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, for short, the TRANSCO is justified and acted legally in seeking to disqualify the petitioner at the threshold of the awarding of the work contracts covered by package No. WB/apseb/tr/rs-20 on the ground that the petitioner lacks the prescribed experience.
( 2 ) THE facts that led to the filing of the writ petition be stated briefly as under: The petitioner and one Sri P. Radha Krishna Reddy, hereinafter referred to as prr , for the sake of brevity, constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Aditya Transmission on 20-11-1991 with equal shares. The partnership firm was involved in the execution of the work of erection of the transmission lines mainly of Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, for short apseb , the predecessor of the TRANSCO which came into being in the place of APSEB with effect from 1-2-1999. Due to some personal problems and inconvenience experienced by the partners, the firm was dissolved with effect from 3-10-1997, and in that regard, an agreement for dissolution of partnership was executed between the partners on 4-8-1997 at Hyderabad. Till the firm was dissolved with effect from 3-10-1997, the partners in the name of the firm executed as many as nine transmission lines with APSEB. Both the partners jointly and actively involved in the execution of the works, gained rich experience and high degree of efficiency in the execution of transmission line works. After the dissolution of the firm, the petitioner and PRR have not entered into any partnership agreements with any other agency or person. Though one of the clauses in the Dissolution Deed authorised PRR to carry out the business of the firm by admitting any third person of his choice into the firm, PRR has not admitted any other person as partner of the firm. However, PRR is carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s. Aditya Transmission, as a proprietary concern.
( 3 ) THE second respondent herein, the Chief Engineer (Transmission), A. P. TRANSCO called for tenders for award of transmission line works in the year 1998. The petitioner submitted his tenders for the works under Lot 1 and Lot 2. In respect of the work under Lot 2, viz. , Lilo to 220 KV Gachibowli sub-station from Chandrayangutta to Shapur Nagar 220 KV DC line, the petitioner s bid was the lowest. PRR had also applied for award of the Contract for the works under Lot 2. Although the petitioner s bid was the lowest as regards Lot 2 work, PRR was awarded the contract. However, the petitioner did not assail the action of the respondents in awarding the work contract under Lot 2 in favour of PRR. While so, the second respondent again issued tender notification IFB dated 5-10-1998 inviting scaled bids from the eligible persons for the erection of the transmission lines and sub-station works mentioned in the Annexure in respect of four Lots under the project called Andhra Pradesh Power Sector Restructuring Project approved by the World Bank vide Package No. WB/apseb/tr/rs-20. The works are mentioned in the Annexure to the Tender Notification under four Lots. The petitioner submitted his tenders for the works under Lots 1 and 4. It appears that certain others have also filed their tenders. PRR has also filed his tender in respect of the work under Lot 4.
( 4 ) THE petitioner on coming to know that the respondents sought to disqualify him at the threshold in the award of the work contracts on the ground that he lacks qualification and experience, filed this writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to disqualify the petitioner in the award of the work contracts covered by Package No. WB/apseb/tr/rs-20, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner s bids in respect of Lots 1 and 4
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
