A KRISHNA REDDY Vs. GVOT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Superintending Engineer, SRSP, Circle No.1, the 3rd respondent herein, invited tenders, through E-procurement platform on 29.9.2006, for the work of formation of an Earthern Dam, construction of spill way, Head Regulators, Left and Right side lead channels, high level B.T. road, including construction of DLR bridge and two irrigation canals, including distributaries, for a project at Mothe village of Ramadugu Mandal, Karimnagar District. The work comprised of investigation, designing and execution. The Internal Bench Mark value of the work was mentioned as Rs.99.80 crores, and tenders with technical and price bids were to be submitted 'on line' by 5.12.2006. The petitioner and 8 other tenderers responded. On 11.12.2006, 8 tenders were opened, and it was found that the amount quoted by the petitioner i.e. Rs.79,02,47,000/-, was the lowest. The tender submitted by the 4th respondent, by name M/s.Manisha & Mulay (joint venture) was rejected, on the ground that it failed to upload the scanned copies of bank guarantee towards EMD.

(2.) The 4th respondent made a representation to the Chief Engineer of the concerned unit, the 2nd respondent herein, and the Government in the Irrigation Department, the 1st respondent, stating the circumstances, under which the defect in uploading the scanned copies occurred. The matter was referred to the Commissionerate of Tenders. The Commissionarate is said to have recommended that the tender submitted by the 4th respondent also be considered, since it had uploaded the necessary information through online, and hard copies were submitted. Acting on this recommendation, the 1st respondent issued memo, dated 28.3.2007, permitting the 2nd respondent, to open the price bid of the 4th respondent. The said memo is challenged in this writ petition, alleging that it contravenes the conditions of tender notice, apart from being illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the price bid of the 4th respondent was not opened, on account of the fact that there was a technical error and defect in the tender document. It is stated that the representation made by the 4th respondent, soon after opening the price bids, was examined by an expert body, and an objective decision was taken thereon. Copies of several documents, which had a bearing on the issue, are enclosed. It is further contended that in view of the controversy that ensued subsequent to the impugned order, the office of the 1st respondent issued a letter, dated 2.4.2007, to the processing agency, the 5th respondent, not to restore the tender submitted by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent filed an independent counter affidavit. According to it, the uploading of the scanned copies of the demand draft for EMD was done, but did not materialise, on account of a technical snag. It is urged that the EMD was furnished, the information relating thereto was made part of the tender document, and that the hard copies of the document were furnished, much before the due date. The 4th respondent contends that opening of its price bid would, at the most, result in a healthier competition, and no prejudice can be said to have suffered by the petitioner.