NAVYUGA ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an Engineering Contractors company which submitted its tender to the Visakapatnam Port Trust for the construction of a multipurpose Berth response to the tender notification dated 16-3-1997 issued by the Port Trust. In this Writ petition petitioner seeks to assail the action of the respondent-Port Trust in deciding not to open or consider the price bid submitted by the petitioner view of the filing of an F.I.R. by the C.B.I. against the petitioner and others alleging the commission of certain offences in connection with a different work previously entrusted to the petitioner by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The said action is sought to be challenged on the ground that it amounts to blacklisting of the petitioner and that the same is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was pre-qualified and the tender documents were issued to it. The tender documents consist of two parts, Part-1 consisting of techno-commercial bid and Part-2 price bid. Part-1 consisting of the techno-commercial bid was opened on 5-12-1996 in the presence of all the bidders including the petitioner. Thereafter all the bidders were called for discussions and certain modifications on the techno-commercial aspects of the tenders were suggested by the respondent apart from requesting the bidders for withdrawal of certain condition. The petitioner also was called for the said negotiations and accordingly the petitioner agreed for the modifications suggested by the respondent. By letter dated 5-2-1997 the petitioner was asked by the respondent-Port Trust to submit a revised price bid in view of the changes made in the techno-commercial bid of the petitioner if it so wishes. The petitioner, by its letter dated 10-2-1997 informed the respondent that the revised price bid will be submitted on 15-2-1997. In the meantime the respondent issued the impugned letter dated 12-2-1997 informing the petitioner that it is proposed not to open the price bid submitted by the petitioner as the C.B.I., S.P.E., Visakhapatnam, have filed an F.I.R. dated 20-1-1997 in the Court of the Special Judge for C.B.I. cases, Visakapatnam. The petitioner was, therefore, requested to give its representation, if any, in this regard before 14-2-1997. Apprehending that the price bids submitted by the other tenderers may be opened and finalised without considering its own price bid, the petitioner immediately rushed to this court and filed the present writ petition on 13-2-1997 and sought for interim orders. This Court, by its order passed on 13-2-1997, directed the respondents to postpone the opening of the bids and finalisation of the same upto 21-2-1997. Meanwhile the petitioner was directed to make a representation which shall be considered by the Port Trust and appropriate orders be passed thereon. Pursuant to the said interim direction, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent on 14-2-1997. The same was considered and rejected by the respondent on 20-2-1997. Though no formal application for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition is filed by the petitioner in this behalf, the petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of the proceeding dated 20-2-1997 also whereby the respondent rejected the petitioner's representation.

(3.) Mr. C. V. Mohan Ready, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned action clearly amounts to blacklisting and that it is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and the principles of natural justice. He also contended that allegations in the F.I.R. which is merely information of a preliminary nature, cannot form the basis for any punitive action and the petitioner cannot be deprived of its right to participate in the bid merely on the basis of the F.I.R. without any independent enquiry conducted by the respondent in regard to the alleged irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner previously. He also submitted that the allegations contained in the F.I.R. are totally false and baseless as the work, which is the subject matter of the F.I.R., was duly completed by the petitioner more than two years ago and no whisper of any allegation has been made about the quality of the work and the F.I.R. is lodged after two years of the completion of the work. In the meantime, the petitioner was also awarded another work which clearly goes to show that the allegations in the F.I.R. are baseless. He further contended that even if it is taken on its face value, the F.I.R. does not disclose any offence and that the impugned action, which is based solely on the F.I.R. is manifestly arbitrary. He finally submitted that the investigation on the basis of the F.I.R. may take a long time and meanwhile the petitioner cannot be excluded from consideration for any work and the consequences of the impugned action will be disastrous to the petitioner as the petitioner cannot bid for any other work in the Port Trust or in any other organization for that matter. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance mainly on the decision of the Supreme Court E.E. & C. Ltd. v. State of W.B. (AIR 1975 SC 266), J. Vilangadan v. Executive Engineer (PWD) Ernakulam (AIR 1978 SC 930), and Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 1271).