MARUTHI CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. GOVT. OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 2 issued notice vide Notification No. 1/NAND/2022 dtd. 21/7/2022 inviting tenders for grant of quarry lease with respect to one (1) Block in the State of Andhra Pradesh in survey No. 801/P, Mineral Concession Area (Ha), measuring 4.000 Hectors of Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the e-auction conducted on 18/8/2022 through Andhra Pradesh e-Procurement Portal. One M/s. Usha Sri Quarryes emerged as H1 bidder for an amount of Rs.1,04,15,000.00. Respondent No. 2 issued letters dtd. 23/8/2022 and 16/9/2022 requesting the H1 bidder to pay the auction premium amount within 15 days. On the request of H1 bidder, respondent No. 2 extended time for another ten days for payment of premium amount but the H1 bidder did not pay the bid amount. Hence, the respondents disqualified the H1 bidder as per Clause No. 12 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Auction Rules, 2022. As the petitioner is the second highest bidder, he made a representation stating that he is ready and willing to pay the preferred bid amount and requested to grant quarry lease in his favour in the said area as the H1 bidder failed to pay the bid amount in spite of extending the time. Acceding to the request of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 issued a notice dtd. 6/12/2022 asking him to pay the auction premium amount of Rs.1,04,15,000.00 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The said notice has been communicated to the petitioner by email on 16/12/2022 at about 5.39 p.m. As the petitioner was in hospital attending his father, he could not verify the said email. Unfortunately, on the very next day i.e. on 17/12/2022, father of the petitioner passed away due to ill-health in Andhra Hospitals, Vijayawada. Having come to know of the notice, the petitioner made a representation on 9/1/2023 to respondent No. 2 requesting him to grant ten days' time to pay the highest auction premium amount of Rs.1,04,15,000.00 by explaining the reasons stated above and by enclosing a copy of death certificate of his father but the latter, instead of considering the request of the petitioner sympathetically, issued the impugned proceedings dtd. 6/1/2023 holding that as per Clause 11.3 of Tender Document, the petitioner is declared as disqualified and as per Clause 12.7, the bid security amount of the petitioner shall be forfeited and the same is communicated to the petitioner on 12/1/2023. It is the said action of respondent No. 2 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

(2.) Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings appearing for respondent No. 3.

(3.) As per the averments and material placed on record, it is the petitioner who requested respondent No. 2 by making a representation on 18/8/2022 stating that he is ready and willing to pay the highest auction premium amount. Considering the request of the petitioner, respondent No. 2 sent email on 16/12/2022 at about 5.39 p.m. asking him to pay the highest auction premium amount but unfortunately on the very next day, father of the petitioner passed away due to ill-health. As such, the petitioner could not verify the email sent by respondent No. 2. After coming to know of the said email, immediately the petitioner made a representation on 9/1/2023 requesting respondent No. 2 to grant ten days' time to pay the highest auction premium amount of Rs.1,04,15,000.00. Along with the representation, the petitioner also annexed a copy of death certificate of his father to show his bona fides. In such circumstances and due to the reasons explained by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 ought to have considered the request of the petitioner in a sympathetic manner.