(1.) The petitioner, who is a PWD, and R&B contractor, aggrieved by the refusal of the first respondent to issue tender schedule to him with regard to Chit Tender called for the works on the National Highway No.9 on Vijayawada- Hyderabad Road, prays for a declaration that new condition No.2 of CT No.4 / 91-92 dated 9-7-92 of the first respondent was void. He seeks a direction to the first respondent to issue tender forms and to consider his tender along with others.
(2.) Chit Tender notice No.6/91-92 dated 10-3-92 was issued as per the specifications of the Surface Transport Department, Government of India and PWD Code of the State Government. According to the instructions of the Chief Engineer, the said chit tender notice was cancelled and a fresh chit tender notice No.4/91-92 dated 9-7-92 was issued. Chit Tender Notice No.6/91-92 dated 10-3-92 was issued for six works with last date for receipt of requisition for supply of tender schedules as 10-4-92 and the date for receipt of the same as 30-4-92. The condition was that the applicant shall possess machinery, such as, hot-mix plant, paver and tippers with proof of ownership of the said machinery. An amendment was issued on 3-3-92 to the effect that the contractor should be capable of executing the butuminous items with hot-mix plant and he should produce either the proof of ownership of the plant or an undertaking from any owner of the plant located within 70 Kms. radius that he is prepared to lend his plant to execute bituminous items in the specified works.
(3.) In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted an application for supply of tender documents, duly enclosing the challan towards the cost of tender and enclosing a letter of undertaking from M/s. B. Seenaiah & Co, to comply with the amended conditions. There was change of Chief Engineer, National Highways, who issued instructions 'on 2-7-92 to insist ownership of machinery. Consequently, the tender notice No.6/91-92 was cancelled and a fresh chit tender notice No.4/92-93 dated 9-7-92 was issued, prescribing the conditions for ownership of the machinery like hot-mix plant, paver finisher and the location of the plant as per the approved norms. The petitioner submitted the application for tender documents on the prescribed date, but without the proof of ownership of the machinery. The first respondent refused to issue the tender documents without the proof of ownership of the machinery.