LAWS(APH)-2015-5-24

SRI LAKSHMI TRANSPORT, WARANGAL DISTRICT AND ORS. Vs. SRI SAI MANI LORRY SUPPLIERS, WARANGAL DISTRICT AND ORS.

Decided On May 01, 2015
Sri Lakshmi Transport, Warangal District And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Sri Sai Mani Lorry Suppliers, Warangal District And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent issued Tender Notice dated 9.2.2015 inviting tenders for the works relating to transportation of food grains, pulses or any other commodities from various places within and outside the district to various places, within and outside the district under Stage -1 excluding the transportation to fair price shop points for the year 2015 -16. In response to the said notification, the petitioner submitted online bid. The 2nd respondent opened the technical bids on 24.2.2015 and financial bids on 26.2.2015. Out of the 3 tenders, the tender in respect of New Nagendra Transport was disqualified and the petitioner's tender was considered to be the lowest i.e., L1 and Y. Srikanth Transport was L2. As per Clause 16 of the Tender Conditions, the lowest rate received in the tender will be treated as L1. As per Clause 31, in case L1 tenderer is backed out, the 2nd respondent -CCS and Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Hyderabad (the Corporation, for short) reserves the right to call the L2 tenderer. The petitioner quoted flat rate at 14.28% whereas Y. Srikanth quoted 15.35%. According to the petitioner, the petitioner being the lowest tenderer, he is entitled for award of the contract. It is submitted by the petitioner that after opening the technical bid on 24.2.2015 and financial bid on 26.2.2015 respectively, he was informed that he was the lowest tenderer and he was asked to attend the office of the 2nd respondent -Corporation on 28.2.2015 to finalise the tender. When he went to the office and enquired about the award of tender, he was informed that they wanted to take a decision in couple of days for awarding tender. He submits that to his utter surprise, the 2nd respondent -Corporation issued Re -Tender Notice dated 28.2.2015 and the same was published in Times of India Newspaper on 1.3.2015 inviting online tenders for Warangal, Medak, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Nizamabad Districts in the State of Telangana. It is contended by the petitioner that having informed that he is the lowest tenderer i.e., L1, the action of the respondents -Corporation in not awarding the contract for transportation of food grains for the year 2015 -16 in Warangal District without any reasons is highly arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that the 2nd respondent -Corporation has not given any notice to him informing about cancelling the Tender Notice dated 9.2.2015 and also has not given any reasons for not awarding contract to him in respect of transportation of food grains etc., in Warangal District for the year 2015 -16 after opening the technical and financial bids though the petitioner is the lowest tenderer. According to him, he has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the Tender Notice and he is the lowest tenderer and his technical and financial bids were accepted. Obviously, without the knowledge of the petitioner and without awarding contract, issuing the Re -Tender Notification for the same work is said to be highly arbitrary, bad and illegal. He pointed out that the Tender Notification was given on 9.2.2015 in respect of 10 districts in the State of Telangana and tenders relating to technical and financial bids were opened in respect of all districts but Re -Tender Notice was given only in respect of 5 districts for which no reasons were given. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent -Corporation in not awarding the contract to the petitioner, who is the lowest tenderer and issuing Re -Tender Notification dated 28.2.2015 for the same work as arbitrary and illegal and to pass necessary orders.

(2.) THE respondents -Corporation filed counter -affidavit contending, inter alia, as follows:

(3.) I have heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the State of Telangana appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 -Corporation and Sri Kishore Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the impleaded parties -respondents 4 to 10.