TEJA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner firm is engaged in civil contract works. First respondent issued a tender notice dated 5.11.2003 inviting bids on 'E' Procurement Platform for the work of laying of C.C. Lining with Paver finish for KM 65.590 to KM 72.225 on Priyadarshini Jurala Project (PJP) Left main canal in Mahaboobnagar District. Petitioner submitted his tender before last date i.e., 18.11.2003. On 19.11.2003 petitioner's technical bid was opened, but when price bids were open on 1.12.2003, petitioner's bid was not opened. Therefore petitioner filed W.P.No.25506 of 2003 seeking a declaration that the action of respondents in not opening price bid of petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. Writ petition was admitted and notice was ordered in WPMP. In the meanwhile on 5.12.2003, tender dated 5.11.2003 was cancelled by Government. In view of the same, this Court dismissed writ petition on 9.1.2004 as infructuous.

(2.) First respondent again issued Notice Inviting Tenders ('NIT' for brevity) on 17.12.2003 for the same work from eligible contractors. The last date for submission of tenders on 'E' Procurement Platform is 31.12.2003. The technical bids were opened on 1.1.2004 and price bids were opened on 5.1.2004. Petitioner submitted his tender. Petitioner apprehends that though his price bid was opened on 1.1.2004, respondents may not open the price bid having regard to the eligibility criteria under condition 25(iii) of NIT. Therefore, petitioner filed present writ petition challenging condition 26(iii) as illegal and arbitrary and also contrary to G.O. Ms. No.94 Irrigation and CAD (PW- COD) Department dated 1.7.2003. Counter Case

(3.) This Court, at the time of preliminary hearing on 7.1.2004 directed the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation Department to file counter-affidavit and produce necessary record. Third respondent who invited tenders has since filed counter- affidavit and also produced original NIT of 'E' Procurement Platform. Petitioner averments are denied. It is further stated that in the earlier NIT dated 5.11.2003, a condition was imposed to the effect that contractor must have satisfactorily completed as a prime contractor similar works within block period of five years from 1998-99 to 2002-03 of value not less than Rs. 192.48 lakhs in any one financial year. Even in the present NIT, no new eligible criteria was introduced. While stipulating similar condition, to avoid any confusion, it was mentioned that similar works must have been completed hundred per cent in all respects and it was made clear that the works completed beyond block period i.e., beyond 1.4.2003 will not be considered for financial requirement. The earlier condition was also to the same effect. The allegations of petitioner that in the case of M/s. K. Srinivasa Reddy who did not complete the works and was doing ongoing works was treated as satisfying eligibility criteria, has been denied. It is stated that when the works relating to Rajoli Banda Diversion Scheme Link Canal CC lining were taken up in view of urgency and with a view to provide water to the tail- end ayacutdars, the work was divided into two packages and got executed through different agencies. When the tenders submitted by one of the agency was not satisfying, the requirement of completion of work within block period, Government as a special case exempted M/s. K. Srinivasa Reddy from possessing eligibility criteria of completion of works within block period. In fact the said agency completed works in full, but a part of it was spilled over to next financial year. Taking into consideration of the urgency, Government issued memo dated 27.9.2003 relaxing the period of criteria. The same was subject-matter of enquiry before Hon'ble Lokayukta who after perusing the entire record found that there are no irregularities in awarding work to M/s. K. Srinivasa Reddy. Petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit denying counter averments. Submissions in support of petitioner's case