AMARCHAND SHANNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner-Firm, M/s Amarchand Sharma building contractor, seek to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the acceptance of the tender of the 4th respondent by the Chief Engineer, M.E.S., South Zone, Madras respondent 2 herein, as illegal and void; and in turn to accept the tender of the petitioner for the construction of residential accommodation for D.A.D. staff and allied services at Secunderabad notified in February, 1985.

(2.) The relevant format of the case in brief is that the petitioner firm, as averred in the affidavit, are registered-as A Class contractors in Southern Command. Various works have been taken up and completed since the year 1940. The 2nd respondent had earlier accepted the tenders of the petitioner-Firm up to Rs.83 lakhs for a single work and it was completed without any complaint. That apart is about eight contracts running- into several lakhs were also taken up and completed satisfactorily right up to 1982-83. It is well equipped Firm with all the technical know- how available. During the month of February 1979, the 2nd respondent and the Chief Engineer (R&D), Picket, Secunderabad called for tenders for (1) construction of Airmens quarters and officers mess at Bidar, (2) construction of auditorium at Airforce Academy, Dundigal, Hyderabad and (3) construction of covered storage accommodation and open stock-yards for stones of D.R.D.L., Hyderabad. In order to tender when approached for the supply of tender forms, the same as refused without any reason and consequently the petitioner had to file a writ petition for the issuance of terrier forms. After admitting the writ petition in W.P. No. 6543/79, interim directions were given for the supply of tender forms subject to the eligibility and pursuantly the tender foms were furnished and the same were submitted. In fact, thereafter the 2nd respondent and the Chief Engineer (R & D) called for tenders in respect of fresh works and the tender submitted by the petitioner was in fact accepted by the 2nd respondent and the Chief Engineer and thereafter the work was duly executed in the years 1980-84.

(3.) Thereafter, the 2nd respondent notified tenders in Feb 1985 for the following three works (1,) For construction of residential accommodation for D.A.D. staff and allied services at Secunderabad; (2) For construction of staff community ale shopping centre and allied serving at Secunderabad to the aforesaid staff; and (3) For provision of gun shed and gun park Dr medium guns at Artillery Centre, Yolkonda costing about Rs.30 lakhs. The petitioner-Firm sought for tender forms and the same were furnished only in respect of items 1 and 2 and t he third one was not ripe, then. Tenders in respect of two works were submitted and the petitioner being the second lowest in both the tenders, the tender forms in respect of second work were filed on 4- 10- 1985 which were received by the 2nd respondent, but, however, the 2nd respondent cancelled the tender in October, 1985 unilaterally without any paper, publication again despatched tender forms to the other contractors who had filed the earlier enders in respect of the same tender as well is in respect of third tender which was denied o the petitioner-Firm without any reason since the last date for submission of tender 1orrns for the recalled tender was 15- 11- 1985 and was later extended to 30- 11- 1985 and for the third one being December, 1985 and caving come to know about the cancellation and calling for fresh tenders, the petitioner-Firm requested, the 2nd respondent in the first week of November, 1985 at Madras to issue the tender forms for the said two tenders, but the same was refused.