J KARUNAKARA RAO Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TENDERS HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner's tender application as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the terms and conditions of G.O.Ms. No. 85 dated 20-3-1993, besides violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also prays for issuance of consequential direction to the respondents to accept the tender of the petitioner by declaring as lowest tender.

(2.) The petitioner is a Class-I and Special Class contractor and registered as such with the Irrigation Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh. Third respondent herein had invited tenders for lift irrigation, drinking, water scheme, earthwork excavation, canal cutting and banking, including unlined and lined work canal at Chinnamarur Village of Veepanagandla Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. A notification to this effect was published in the newspapers. The petitioner is stated to have submitted his tender by complying with all the conditions, such as payment of E.M.D. of Rs. 55,400.00 schedule cost of Rs. 1,100.00 and by enclosing necessary enclosures as required under the tender notification. In all six tenders were received and they were opened on 14-3-1997 in the office of the third respondent. The petitioner's tender has been rejected by the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner had written the rates with regard to Item 18(b) in words only and failed to mention the same in figures. Admittedly, out of all the offers received, the petitioner's offer is the lowest one and of the fourth respondent herein is the third lowest. The tender application of the Laxmi Engineering Company, which is the second lowest is also rejected.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent ought not to have rejected his tender on such frivolous objection regarding non-mentioning of the amounts in figures and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner's offer is the lowest one and in between the lowest tender and the tender of the fourth respondent, which is now accepted is to the tune of Rs. 2.00 lakh, which is very substantial. By the impugned action the State exchequer is put to substantial loss of Rs. 2.00 lakh. The error or mistake, if any, found in his tender is so trivial in nature and such a trivial error cannot form basis for rejection of the tender. It is the case of the petitioner that the rejection of his tender is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is also stated that the terms and conditions stipulated in the tender notice are contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 85 and the rejection, therefore, is not only arbitrary, but contrary to the said G.O., issued by the Government, which is binding on the respondents. The mistake if any in not mentioning the rate in figures, while mentioning in words is due to inadvertence and is not deliberate or wanton.