VENKATESWARA CONSTRUCTIONS VISAKHAPATNAM Vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST CHAIRMAN VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Class-A contractor registered with the respondents filed the present Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondents in issuing fresh tender notification No. EE(EQ.7) /T/16/192, dated 27-4-1995 for the work "hard surfacing the reclaimed area at the west side to VPT junction" without awarding the work to the petitioner who happened to be the lowest bidder among the bidders who submitted their bids persuant to an earlier notification dated 30-12-1994. He contends that such an action is arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Nextly he contended that the action of the respondents is a mala fide and vindictive as the petitioner firm approached Civil Court and obtained orders directing the respondents to issue tender papers on or before 15-3-1995 and open the tenders on 18-3-1995. The respondents committed grave illegality is not accepting the lowest bid which is even lower than the estimated cost of the work.

(2.) This Court while admitting the Writ Petition by order dated 23-5-1995 ordered interim stay in WP.MP. No. 12567/95. After re-opening of the Courts the Writ Petition was listed before me for hearing on 6-6-1996. On that day the respondents organisation filed its counter wherein it was stated that all the bidders who submitted their applications before the last date formed into a ring/syndicated with a view to see that the work is allotted in favour of one P.Janakiramaraju, and even before the last date for submission of the tenders expired, the Chairman received an unsigned complaint, wherein it was stated that a telegram was also given on 15-2-1995 bringing to his notice about the formation of the ring by the bidders. On that the Chairman directed the vigilence Cell functioning in his organisation to verify the facts of the case and submit a report. The confidential enquiries made by the Vigilence Cell confirmed the fact about the formation of a ring/syndicate by these bidders. The vigilence Cell submitted its report accordingly. In that report the rates quoted by each of the bidders/con tractors were also mentioned. The Chairman perused the report and thereafter the tenders were opened on 18-3-1995 including the tender of the petitioner as per the direction of the Sub-Court and got the rates quoted in the tenders verified. The verification revealed that the rates quoted for second item of the work mentioned in the tender schedule by the bidders are similar and tallied with the rates mentioned in the investigation report while there is slight variation in the rates quoted by lowest bidder i.e., P. Janakiramaraju. From this it is evident that those 9 bidders formed into a ring/syndicate to see that the work is awarded to Mr. P. Janakiramaraju. They also stated that in reciprocation Mr. Janakiramaraju agreed to distribute Rs. 10-00 lakhs to the syndicate/ring members if the work is awarded to him. The Vigilence Cell continued its enquiries after opening of the tenders also.

(3.) Before examing the case of the petitioner it is necessary to keep in mind certain facts in this case. The respondents issued tender notification inviting tenders for execution of 4 works including the one in controversy on 30-12-1994. As per the notification the tenders are invited from Class-B contractors and above. The last date for issue of tender schedules is stipulated as 3-2-1995 and the last date and time of opening of the tender is fixed at 11:30 a.m. on 15-3-1995. The case of the petitioner is that though it is a Class-A contractor it wanted to participate in the tender and accordingly the for tender papers was prepared and signed on 19-1-1995 and a pay order for Rs. 500/- was obtained on 21-1-1995 and approached the respondent office. But, the respondent office did not issue the tender papers by stating that there is still time. Of course there is no documentary evidence whatsoever in support of this contention. He also stated that on 4-2-1995 when he approached the respondent office they refused to supply the tender papers by stating that the time was over. With above allegations he filed O.S. No. 64/95 on the file of the Prl. Sub Judge questioning the action of the respondents. Along with this suit he seemed to have filed two applications. One for supply of tender papers and another for a direction not to open the tenders pending disposal of the IAs. After counters were filed by order dated 10-3-1995 the sub-Court seemed to have directed the respondents to furnish the tender papers to the petitioner firm by 15-3-1995 and to open all the tenders on 18-3-1995. After the tenders were opened the petitioner's bid became the lowest and he quoted the rates less than the estimated cost. Further the difference between the rate quoted by him and the next lowest bid seemes to be about Rs. 8:00 lakhs. On this aspect the Vigilence Cell reported by the time tender papers are given to the petitioner firm the rates quoted by other bidders became a public secret, taking advantage of the Court orders while submitting its tender after the last date it seemed to have offered the lowest bid. Accordingly, the Vigilence Cell opined that it is desirable to cancel all the tenders for the work in question to thwart the plans of the unscrupulous contractors. By this act the respondents may get sufficient computation and may get the word done at much lower rate if tenders are called afresh.