M/S SAI RAM CONSTRUCTIONS HANAMKONDA, WARANGAL URBAN DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CHALLA LINGA REDDY Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA, REP.BY ITS PRL.SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT & COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT (CAD) DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 06.09.2018 Online tender notification was issued calling for bids to undertake the job of repairs and restoration of Rallavagu and Rallavagu Pick up Dam, Karegattu village, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem district as part of Mission Kakatiya Phase-IV Project. The Estimated Contract Value (ECV) was 41,29,10,539.00. The bid validity period prescribed as three months and time for completion of work as 24 months. Clause-17 of the tender notification prescribes submission of solvency certificate. Petitioner submitted his bid. He has obtained solvency certificate issued by the Indian Overseas Bank on 19.09.2018 certifying that petitioner can be treated as good up to a sum of 42.00 crores. Technical bids were opened on 20.09.2018 and the evaluation was completed by 26.09.2018. On 26.09.2018 petitioner was informed that the tender submitted by the petitioner was not accepted on the ground that the solvency certificate was conditional and, therefore, not acceptable. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) Heard learned senior counsel Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy appearing for Sri G.Madusudhan Reddy, counsel for petitioner, learned senior counsel Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy for 5th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) According to learned senior counsel Sri A.Sudarshan Reddy rejection of tender on the ground that solvency certificate is conditional is illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. The rejection was deliberately made only to favour the other contractor. According to learned senior counsel, solvency certificate issued to the petitioner is not conditional. The reading of certificate would clearly show that the Bank certified that petitioner is capable of executing work worth 42.00 crores though solvency certificate required only for ?rd of ECV. He would further submit that solvency certificate is not mandatory and, therefore, merely because there are some technical defects in submission of solvency certificate is no good ground to deny the tender submitted by petitioner. Such defects are curable and if only an opportunity is afforded to the petitioner, he would have obtained a better solvency certificate as required by them. On such mere technical ground for non essential requirement tender condition, the tender submitted by the participant cannot be rejected. Merely because the tender conditions mentioned requirement of solvency certificate as mandatory cannot itself would amount to mandatory condition requiring strict compliance. Petitioner has submitted solvency certificate and what is objected is only form of submission of certificate and, therefore, opportunity ought to have been given.