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

2024 Supreme(AP) 1246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Subba Reddy Satti, J.
K.Venkateswara Rao - Petitioner
Versus
Government of Andhra Pradesh and two others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.25534 of 2012
Decided On : 28-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma.
For the Respondent: GP for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Sri M.Manohar Reddy.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that authorities acted within their rights in cancelling tenders and forfeiting EMDs due to the petitioner's failure to comply with agreement terms.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Challenge to cancellation of tenders and forfeiture of EMDs - Petitioner failed to enter into agreements and commence works despite being the successful bidder - Court held that the authorities followed due procedure in cancelling the tenders and forfeiting the EMDs. (Paras 8, 13, 19)

(B) Disputed Questions of Fact - The court noted that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings, as established in prior case law. (Paras 14, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of tenders and forfeiture of EMDs after failing to commence work despite being the successful bidder for multiple construction projects.

Findings of Court:

The court found no irregularity in the cancellation of tenders and forfeiture of EMDs, affirming that the authorities acted within their rights.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the tender cancellation and the appropriateness of the forfeiture of EMDs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authorities acted properly in cancelling the tenders due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the agreement terms, and reiterated that disputed questions of fact are not suitable for writ jurisdiction.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

Subba Reddy Satti, J.

The Writ Petition is filed to declare the orders of 3rd respondent vide Roc.No.3362/10/13F-2/E4 dated 26.03.2012; Roc.Nos.3362/10/13F-10/E4; 3362/10/13F- 5/E4; 3362/10/13F-9/E4 and 3362/10/13F-4/E4 dated 06.08.2012, cancelling the tenders and forfeiting the EMDs and ASDs and FSDs, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri C.Abhishek, learned counsel representing Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent.

3. The 3rd respondent has called for certain tenders through e-procurement to execute the following works:

    a) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 12th Division, Venkateswara Nagar, Kakinada with estimated value of Rs.43,00,000/-;

    b) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 10th Division, Satya Nagar, near Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Dummulapeta, Kakinada with estimated value of Rs.48,00,000/-;

    c) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 49th Division, from Saranya Public School to Somalamma Temple on its northern side to connect to Outlet drain in Rajeswari Nagar with estimated value of Rs.40,00,000/-;

    d) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 1st Division, from Padma Nagar to the present RTO office Junction on its western side with estimated value of Rs.21,15,000/-;

    e) Construction of Storm Water Drain in 1st Division, from Ramanayyapet Main Road to RTO office to the 1st Cross Road in Vidyanagar (Beraka church Road) with estimated value of Rs.30,00,000/-;

    f) Construction of Storm Water Drain at Dummulapeta in 10th and 11th Divisions with estimated value of Rs.43,00,000/-;

    g) Construction of Storm Water Drain at M.S.N. Charities, Yanam Road with estimated value of Rs.25,82,000/-;

3. Petitioner submitted tenders for all the works by paying EMD and he stood as L1 bidder. Letter of acceptance was given on 13.01.2012. Petitioner has to enter into agreements and to commence the work.

4. In respect of 6th work, referred to supra, the petitioner neither entered into agreement nor commenced the work and hence, notices dated 24.01.2012 and 01.02.2012 were issued to the petitioner. Petitioner addressed letter dated 23.01.2012 stating that in respect of works 1, 2, 3 & 4, he paid EMD and ASDs and entered into agreements and hence, requested to give clearance and markings. In respect of works 5 & 6, he paid EMD and ASDs are yet to be paid. Immediately after clearance and markings, he would pay the ASDs and enter into agreements and proceed with the works. In respect of work No.7, he requested to give clearance and markings.

5. Petitioner addressed letter dated 26.03.2012 stating that in respect of works 1 to 6 mentioned therein, he entered into agreements, however the authorities did not give any markings and hence, requested to extend the time till 31.07.2012. In respect of work relating to construction of Storm Water Drain in 10th and 11th Divisions, 6th work referred to supra, he submitted a representation stating that the people residing therein are raising objections and hence requested to commence the work in the first instance and later allow him to pay ASDs and enter into agreement.

6. In respect of work relating to construction of Storm Water Drain in 10th and 11th Divisions, 6th work referred to supra, since the petitioner failed to entered into agreement, the office of 3rd respondent issued notices dated 24.01.2012 and 01.02.2012 and eventually by proceedings impugned in the writ petition vide Roc.No.3362/10/13F-2/E4 dated 26.03.2012, cancelled the tender and forfeited the EMD. Though the work was cancelled on 26-3-2012 and forfeited EMD, the petitioner challenged the said proceedings along with the other proceedings.

7. In respect of item No.6, though the petitioner stood as the successful bidder, neither entered into agreement nor deposited the ASDs and FSDs and commenced the work. Petitioner, in fact, addressed letter to allow the petitioner to commence the work and thereafter he will enter into agreements and will deposit ASDs. No explanation was offered

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