K S V RAJU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two writ petitions are filed by one K.S.V. Raja of Narsapur in West Godavari District challenging the action of Respondents 1 to 3 in accepting the tender of fourth respondent for the works for which tenders were invited. As the controversy arises in relation to the same Notice Inviting Tenders (NTT), and the grounds of challenge and the defense of the impugned action is the same, the two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Third respondent, who is Convenor of the Tender Committee of South Central Railway, issued NIT dated 4.3.2004, inviting tenders for three works. We are concerned with two works, namely, (i) Restoration of BG line between Kakinada Town and Kotipalli. Proposed improvements to the existing station building and other passenger amenities at Kakinada Town Station (hereafter called, Work-1) and (ii) Improvements to circulating area on both sides of Kakinada Town Station and construction of second booking office on West side of Kakinada Town Station (hereafter called, Work-2). The approximate value of Work-1 is Rs.1,65,26,455/- (Rupees one crore sixty five lakhs twenty six thousand four hundred and fifty five only) and that of Work-2 is Rs.66,16,836/- (Rupees sixty six lakhs sixteen thousand eight hundred and thirty six only).

(3.) NIT consists of nine conditions. Condition Nos.1.1 to 1.10 deal with eligibility criteria and credentiality of tenderers. As per Condition No.9 last date for closing of tender box and for opening of tender box is 12.4.2004. The petitioner herein submitted tender for Works 1 and 2. The tenders were opened by the Tender Committee consisting of three persons. It was found that the petitioner became lowest tenderer in respect of both the works. Accordingly, the Tender Committee recorded its proceedings and recommended to second respondent; the tender accepting authority. The second respondent rejected the tender of the petitioner for both the works and accepted the tender of fourth respondent. The petitioner therefore filed these two writ petitions contending that the tender submitted by the petitioner is lowest, that he has legitimate expectation for getting the contract and that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in accepting the tender of fourth respondent. Be it noted that the letter of acceptance was issued to fourth respondent on 15.6.2004 and the agreement was entered into on 26.7.2004. These facts are not disputed.