SRI BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER Vs. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS SECRETARY (R&B), HYDERABAD AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, whose pre-qualification bid in respect of contract work, namely, "improvements to Rajupalem-lskapalli road from KM 12/4 to 21/0 covered by tender notification dated 14.9.2007" is rejected, filed the present writ petition. Initially the petitioner questioned the said rejection and later by way of an amendment it assailed awarding of contract in favour of respondent No.4 and sought for consequential direction to respondents 1 to 3 to open the price bid of the petitioner.

(2.) Respondent No.3 issued tender notice bearing NIT No.42678(1)/E-in-C (R&B) A & R/EE(R)/TA.3/AEE.2/2007-08, dated 14.9.2007 through e-procurement for execution of contract work which was described above. In pursuance of the above mentioned tender notice, the petitioner downloaded the bid documents and submitted its tender through e-procurement. Respondent No.4 (impleaded vide order dated 12.11.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.30595 of 2007) is the only other tenderer who submitted its tender. The last date and time stipulated for receipt of bids was 5.10.2007 at 3.30 p.m. and the pre-qualification/technical bid was scheduled to be opened on 5.10.2007 at 4.00 p.m. Opening of price bid was scheduled for 8.10.2007 at 4.00 p.m. The present writ petition is filed on 3.10.2007 by the petitioner on the apprehension that in view of the patent discrepancy between the tender notice and the bid documents on the requirement of possession of equipment, respondents 2 and 3 may reject its pre-qualification/technical bid.

(3.) in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner pleaded that in clause 3.3B of the tender notice, respondent No.3 deliberately omitted to mention the words To be procured" in respect of key and critical equipment, while the tender document contains the said column besides the other two columns, namely owned' and 'leased'. It is specifically alleged in the affidavit that respondents 2 and 3 are responsible for this omission in order to eliminate competitive bids with a view to favour a few contractors. The petitioner further averred that as the bid document does not make owning or leasing of the key and critical equipment a precondition and it facilitates the tenderer to procure the said equipment after the award of the contract and entering into the agreement, the petitioner filed its tender and that its pre-qualification/technical bid therefore, cannot be rejected on the ground of its not owning or leasing the said equipment.