HARSHA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition has been filed by m/s. Sri Harsha Constructions represented by its Managing Partner, Sri. N. Venkateswara rao with a prayer to issue a Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent-The Chief Engineer (Const. IV), south Central Railway, Secunderabad in awarding the contract to 7th respondent-Y. Murali Krishna Rao as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

(2.) AVERMENTS made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, in brief, are: the petitioner is a registered partnership firm and it has been in works contracts for the last more than 25 years. The petitioner has carried on works of Central Government and various State Governments and other instrumentalities. It has acquired specialized skill in constructing bridges, aqueducts, irrigation projects, PSC structures etc. The 2nd respondent-The Chief Administrative officer (Const.), South Central Railway, secunderabad called for tenders for construction of road over bridge through tender notice No. 13/cao/c/sc/2008, dated 8. 4. 2008. The estimated value of the work was Rs. 4. 69,64,961. 20 and the work was to be completed within nine months from the date of accepting the tender. The petitioner and four others submitted tenders. The petitioner made a conditional offer to the effect that if its offer is accepted a rebate upto 2 percent will be given on the value of its quoted rates. The petitioner made similar conditional offers in the earlier tenders and they were accepted by the respondents. With regard to the tender in question the offer made by the petitioner is the lowest amongst all the five tenderers. The offer made by five tenderers is detailed here under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_557_ALT5_2008Html1.htm</FRM> The tenders were opened on 14. 5. 2008 and the petitioner was found to be the L1 tenderer. The petitioner being the L1 tenderer expected acceptance from the respondents. However, the petitioner was informed that there was some ambiguity about the offer. Therefore, the petitioner gave clarification as to the intended meaning and purport of its offer of rebate by way of representations dated 24. 5. 2008 and 9. 6. 2008. The tender committee comprising R4 to R6 recommended to 3rd respondent to call 7lh respondent for negotiations and prevailed over 7th respondent to reduce his offer so as to make his offer as the least after considering the rebate of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, R4 to R6 ought to have called the petitioner for negotiations. Acceptance of tender of 7th respondent is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that it is contrary to fair play and opposed to the principles of natural justice.

(3.) RESPONDENTS have filed counter affidavits. Sri. Anil Kumar Malik has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of R1 to R3 and whereas B. Vishwanath Eerya has sworn to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of R4 to R6 and R7 has filed a separate counter affidavit.