NANDHINI DELUX BANGLORE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in disqualifying the petitioner in the technical bid for leasing out restaurant, canteen and pantry at A.P. Bhavan, New Delhi, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. At the stage of admission itself, the first respondent, namely, Government of Andhra Pradesh, and second respondent (who was impleaded later) filed counter-affidavits. The learned Counsel appearing for rival parties made detailed submissions and therefore with their consent the matter is being disposed of by this order. The petitioner also seeks a consequential direction to the first respondent to accept the technical bid of the petitioner and consider price bid. Alternatively, it is also prayed to cancel the tender process pursuant to tender notice dated 3.8.2005.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as disclosed in the writ affidavit, in brief, is as follows. The first respondent issued tender notice dated 3.8.2005 inviting tenders from reputed catering contractors for running restaurant/canteen and pantry for the inmates of Guest House and visitors of A.P. Bhavan. The petitioner has all essential and subsidiary qualifications prescribed in the tender notice. As required by tender notice, he submitted the technical bid and financial bid. Technical bids were to be opened on 31.8.2005. However, they were not opened on that day. On being telephonically informed, the representative of the petitioner attended the first respondent's office on 5.9.2005 at 5.00 p.m. He was orally informed that the petitioner was not qualified in the technical bid. On further enquiry, the petitioner learnt that the first respondent while evaluating technical bids took into consideration various conditions, which were not part of tender notice. The petitioner is a firm, which was started in 1989 with a single unit. It established a chain of hotels under the name and style of "Nandhini Delux" specializing in catering high-class vegetarian and non- vegetarian authentic Andhra style foodstuffs with high quality. It has earned good reputation for its group of hotels, which employs 700 persons and has a combined turnover of Rs.12.50 crores. The petitioner also established lodging houses in Bangalore and maintaining high standards of quality and competitive prices. It is also involved in out-door catering to software companies. The petitioner has three partners, namely, M/s. Narasimhaiah, N. Ananda and Rupesh Anand, who are also partners in other firms running entire group of hotels. The petitioner firm is having a minimum turnover of Rs.2.50 crores during the last financial year. The petitioner is also having strong quality control mechanism for foodstuffs and has offered more competitive price bid. The first respondent considered irrelevant conditionalities and evaluated price bids applying hidden criteria, which is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also alleged that the first respondent has fixed additional criteria to suit the needs of some tenderers.

(3.) The Additional Secretary to Government in General Administration Department filed counter-affidavit denying various petition averments/allegations. It is stated as follows. When the existing catering contract of M/s. Sai Caterers was to expire on 2.8.2005, Government have taken a decision to call fresh tenders for awarding the contract. In order to professionalise and upgrade catering service, it has been decided to make policy changes in view of the importance of professionalised catering services at A.P. Bhavan in New Delhi. In pursuance of the tender notice, eight parties submitted the bids before due date. After receipt of these, the Committee appointed for evaluating the tenders evolved a transparent and foolproof system of evaluation. The Committee decided to allot marks for different parameters under different heads prescribing fifty per cent as cut-off marks. The parameters and the marks prescribed each one are as follows. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_212_ALD1_2006Html1.htm</FRM>