SHIVRAM ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri S. N. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Gomes Pereira, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent no. 1 and Mr. A. D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 2.

(2.) The above Petition, inter alia, seeks for a declaration that the tender process under the second tender notice dated 20.02.2016 is bad, void ab initio and unconstitutional. It further seeks for a writ of mandamus or any other direction to the Respondent no. 2 to award the tender to the Petitioner for the sale of scrap material and sale of non levy sugar under the tender process dated 20.04.2016 issued by the Respondent no. 2.

(3.) Briefly, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent no. 2 published a tender notice dated 20.04.2016 for the sale of scrap material, sale of brown sugar (season 2014/15 and 2015 -16 ­ 1300 quintals, sale of non levy sugar (season 2014 -15) ­ 7295 quintals and the sale of 'A' grade molasses ­ 1500 metric tonnes. It is further their case that the Petitioner submitted its tender process bids on 28.04.2016 within the scheduled time alongwith all the necessary documents together with the EMD to the tune of 2,80,000/ - for all the four tenders. The price bids of all the parties including the petitioner were open and the Petitioner was the successful tenderer with its highest offer for the category of sale of non levy sugar and sale of scrap materials. But, however, despite the opening of the bids, the Respondent no. 2 did not conduct the further process to award the tender. Subsequently, by a letter dated 13.05.2016, the Petitioner raised the issue of awarding the tender for the sale of non levy sugar with the Respondent no. 2. But, however, the Respondent no. 2 issued a second tender notice with regard to only the sale of brown sugar (2014 -15 and 2015 -16) and sale of non levy sugar (season 2014 -15) on 20.05.2015. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that they made oral inquiries about the said second tender notice which disclosed that as regards the sale of scrap material and 'A' grade materials, tenders were awarded under first tender notice to the respective successful tenderers. It is further their case that the Petitioner addressed another letter to the Respondent no. 2 to issue the tender but with no success. Consequently, the Petitioner filed the above Petition for the aforesaid reliefs.