SHILPA ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLIERS Vs. NORTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO OF ANDHRA PRADESH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent A.P. Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (APNPDCL).

(2.) The petitioner is a registered Contractor with the respondent. Pursuant to the Tender Notice No. 3/2002-2003, issued by the respondent, inviting sealed tenders from registered contractors for manning and maintenance of 33/11 KV sub-stations in Nizamabad Circle, the petitioner submitted his tender. According to the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions of the Tender Notice, the sealed tender covers which do not contain the superscription of the particulars such as, tender specification number, E.M.D. particulars, validity period, acceptance of terms and conditions of the Board/NPDCL, valid licence number from Chief Electrical Inspectorate to Government of Andhra Pradesh and registration number with APNPDC Ltd., Warangal, will be returned unopened. The petitioner claims to have submitted the Tender Schedule by signing on each page, including the page relating to acceptance of terms and conditions of the Tender. It is the case of the petitioner that on the ground that the sealed tender cover submitted by him did not contain the superscription of his acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Board/ NPDCL, the respondent returned the sealed tender cover unopened. The petitioner is assailing this action of the respondent in this writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tender Notice published by the respondent in the newspapers merely states that the sealed tender covers which do not contain the superscription of the particulars such as name of the work, E.M.D. particulars, date of opening, tender specification number etc., will be returned unopened, and it nowhere indicates that the tender should superscribe the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Board/NPDCL on the sealed tender cover. Inasmuch as the Tender Notice published by the respondent in the newspapers does not indicate that the sealed tender covers should contain the superscription of the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Board/NPDCL by the tenderer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-superscription of the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Board/NPDCL by the petitioner on the sealed tender cover, cannot be treated as a ground by the respondent for returning the sealed tender cover unopened. Alternatively he would submit that inasmuch as the petitioner signed on all the pages of the Tender Schedule, including the page relating to acceptance of terms and conditions of Part-I of the Tender Schedule, non-superscription of the acceptance of the terms and conditions of the Board/NPDCL by the petitioner on the sealed tender cover, cannot be taken as serious omission so as to warrant the respondent to return the sealed tender cover unopened.