SUJANA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. MARUTHI CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in the appeal is whether the appellant had complied with Clause-18 of the Tender Notice issued on 15-6-1994 by the Superintending Engineer of Panchayat Raj, Warangal and whether the contract entered into between him and the respondents 2 and 3 for execution of three road works, viz., (1) RRM 93-94 to 1995-96 - Paleru to Subledu vizv Chowtapalli, Bachodu road B.T., K.M. O/O to 21/O Kusumanchi and Tirumalayapalem Mandal of Khammam District; (2) RRM Tanikella to Tatipudi Via., Gopali B.T.K.M. O/O to 9/O Koncherla Mandal, Khammam District and (3), RRM Pallegudem to Mangaligudem District boundary road BT, Khammam District, Khammam, was valid.

(2.) The Writ Petitioner, 1st respondent in the appeal, came to the court with the facts that the tender notice had stipulated the tender to be accompanied by an agreement with the hot mix plant owner assuring supply to the spot/ from adistance capable, of transporting the material within one hour from the plant to the last point of the work spot.

(3.) The 1st respondent's case was that it did not submit tender papers as he was not capable of obtaining the agreement with the hot mix plant owner as required under the tender notice, but that though the appellant had submitted tender paper withoutany agreement of the hot mix plant owner, yet the contract in respect of item No. 1 of the work was given to him to be executed through cold mix process. The grievance raised in the writ petition was that the contract could not have been so awarded to the appellant as had it been known that the contract be executed through cold mix process, the 1st respondent would also have submitted the tender.