N. CHENGA REDDY Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in not following the conditions as stipulated in its eprocurement open auction tender vide proceedings dated 28.01.2017 by awarding Item No.2 of the tender to the relatives (benami) of the 3rd respondent's office employee contrary to the condition No.8 and not awarding the said contract to the next highest bidder.

(2.) Initially petitioner had not made the successful tenderer as a party respondent. However, thereafter, implead-petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.14837 of 2017 seeking to add him as 4th respondent and this Court by order dated 10.04.2017 ordered the said M.P by impleading him as 4th respondent.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent made offers pursuant to the tender notification dated 28.01.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent for collection of broken coconut pieces from the Rahu Khetu Puja area of the 3rd respondent temple, for the period commencing from 01.04.2017 to 31.02018. While petitioner offered a sum of Rs.46,00,200.00, the 4th respondent offered Rs.50,50,999.00. As the 4th respondent's offer being the highest, he was declared as a successful bidder. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is violation of the notified tender conditions as notified in R.C.No.C-2/252/2017, dated 28.01.2017 in particular condition No.8. In terms of condition No.8, the successful bidder is required to pay 50% of the bid amount within a period of two days or within 48 hours of his being declared as a successful bidder. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 4th respondent did not fulfil these conditions and time was provided to him. Inasmuch as there is violation of fulfilling the tender conditions, declaring the 4th respondent as a successful bidder is arbitrary and illegal.