NAVATHA MAHILA MANDALI Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Superintendent of E.S.I. Hospital, Tirupathi, the 3rd respondent issued a tender Notice dated 04.04.2002 inviting tenders from registered Firms and Contractors for rendering round-the-clock house-keeping including cleaning, sanitation, water supply, electricity, telephone and other allied hospital services. The last date for submission of tenders was stipulated as 24.4.2002 and on the same day the tenders were to be opened. The petitioner and Nine others submitted their tenders for the work. Though the tenders were opened on 24.4.2002, the decision in the matter of award of the contract was not taken for quite a long time. Ultimately through orders in G.O.Rt.No.205 Labour Employment, Training & Factories (IMS) Department, dated 31.01.2003, the contract was awarded in favour of the 4th respondent at the rate of Rs.58,563/- per month on condition that it shall engage 24 workers. Not being aware of this G.O. and sensing that the contract is likely to be awarded to some other agency, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 05.02.2003, seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in not allotting the contract to it as illegal and arbitrary and sought for a direction. On coming to know that the contract was awarded to the 4th respondent, W.P.M.P.No.6039 of 2003 was filed seeking amendment of the prayer and the same was ordered. The 4th respondent got itself impleaded through orders dated 17.03.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.3874 of 2003.

(2.) The petitioner contends that it was recognized as a competent agency to render such services and on the basis of the guidelines contained in G.O.Rt.No.464 Health Medical & Family Welfare (Q2) Department, dated 28.04.2001, it was entrusted with the work of rendering sanitation services by the 3rd respondent through orders dated 04.05.2001 on a remuneration of Rs.29,250/- per month, till the finalization of the contract. It submits that an experts committee comprising of the Heads of various Departments has considered all the Ten tenders and submitted a report dated 30.05.2002 not only recommending the case of the petitioner but furnishing the reasons in support of that recommendation.

(3.) A further contention is raised that the Earnest Money Deposits made by the remaining Nine tenderers were refunded on 06.09.2002 and thereafter it was not competent for the respondents to award the contract to any such tenderers.