J SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to a tender notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Eluru Municipality - the second respondent herein - on 20-7-1987 inviting quotations for execution of 113 works mentioned therein, the petitioners herein submitted their tenders. The last date for submission of the tenders was 11-8-1987. As per the notification, the tenders were to be opened at 4-30 P.M on 11-8-1987 in the presence of the tenderers.

(2.) The petitioners have questioned the memo dated 9-4-1986 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which is to the effect that no Municipality should accept any tender for execution of works if the rates quoted in the tender are less than 15% of the estimated rates. This direction contained in the memo dated 9-4-1986 was subsequently incorporated in Para 6 of G.O.Ms.No.626, M.A. dated 12-11-1986 and they are also questioning Para 6 of the said G.O. Before the tenders were finalised, the petitioners approached this court seeking a writ for quashing of the memo dated 9-4-1986 and G.O.Ms.No. 626, M.A dated 12-11-1986 contending that the conditions imposed in the memo and the G.O. are contrary to Rule 6 of the Tender Rules; that no administrative instruction should run counter to a statutory rule and that by imposing such a condition, the Government has brought about a situation whereby the secrecy of tenders would be breached since every person desirous of obtaining contract would naturally quote the same minimum estimated amounts. The quality of work, it is contended by the petitioners could be ensured by effective supervision rather than by imposing the conditions set out in the impugned memo and the G.O.

(3.) The stand in the counter affidavit is that in the interests of maintaining the quality of work, the impugned memo and the G.O. were issued and in no way do they contribute to the secrecy of tenders being violated. Clause 6 of the Tender Conditions clearly lays down that any tender which is less than 15% of the estimated rates shall be rejected. Having submitted the tender subject to the aforesaid condition, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the tender condition is illegal.