M RAVINDER REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Prasad Rao vemulapalli, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri P. Ganga Rami reddi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE only question which had been argued in elaboration is rejecting the tender of the writ petitioner who is incidentally the managing partner of the partnership firm, without taking into consideration the qualifications of the writ petitioner and further holding that the partnership firm as such is not otherwise qualified, in the facts and circumstances cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in New horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, 1995 (1)SCC 478. The learned Counsel also while elaborating his submissions had taken this court through the eligibility criteria and also the other relevant qualifications which had been produced by way of material papers before this Court.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Ganga Rami reddi, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. and another, 2005 (6) SCC 138 = 2005 AILD 305 (SC) and would maintain that in the contractual field, the power of judicial review being limited, normally a decision of this nature not to be disturbed while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned standing Counsel also distinguished the decision of the Apex Court referred New horizons Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), on the ground that in the eligibility criteria there is a specific condition to the effect that in case the tenderer is a partnership firm, the experience, solvency and the turnover shall be in the name of the firm only and such a condition had not fallen for consideration in the decision of the Apex court referred New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India (supra ). The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and would maintain that at any rate in the light of the limitations placed on this Court in disturbing a decision of this nature in the realm of contracts, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.