SOMA-CGGC JV Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petition Nos.32328 of 2012 and 7520 of 2013 were dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court by common order dated 11.09.2013. These writ petitions were filed by two unsuccessful bidders for award of a contract relating to execution of the head works of Indira Sagar Polavaram Project. The grievance of both the writ petitioners was as to the bid eligibility of the successful bidder, M/s. Transstroy -UES JV, the eighth respondent herein, and the award of the contract in its favour. Writ Appeal No.1768 of 2013 filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.7520 of 2013 was dismissed for non -prosecution on 09.12.2014. The present appeal was filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.32328 of 2012.

(2.) HEARD Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Sri S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for the eighth respondent, and the learned Advocate General for the State of Andhra Pradesh. Initially, only two out of the six tenderers for the subject contract were found eligible, viz., the appellant and another bidder. Award of the contract was, in fact, recommended in favour of the appellant. However, upon a direction by this Court in W.P.No.22664 of 2012 and batch filed by the unsuccessful bidders, including the eighth respondent herein, a High Power Committee (HPC) comprising senior officials of the State reconsidered the matter and five out of the six bidders were found eligible. Thereupon, the price bids of those bidders were opened on 01.10.2012 and the eighth respondent emerged the lowest tenderer (LI). Significantly, the appellant slipped to the fourth position (L -IV). The HPC therefore recommended award of the contract to the eighth respondent and the said recommendation was accepted by the Government under Memo dated 26.10.2012. Award of the contract to the eighth respondent is stated to have resulted in a saving of Rs.663.00 crore to the public exchequer.

(3.) HOWEVER , the appellant claims that the eighth respondent was not at all qualified to be considered for award of the contract in terms of the eligibility conditions prescribed in the tender notice dated 16.04.2012. More particularly, the thrust of the attack launched against the eighth respondent is: (1) that it failed to satisfy the requirement of registration with the Registrar of Companies under Clause 30(A)(4) of the tender conditions, (2) that it failed to satisfy the financial requirement as prescribed in Clause 30(C) of the tender conditions, (3) that it relied on forged and fraudulent experience certificates, and (4) that it failed to file a power of attorney in the prescribed format.