RAMAKRISHNA ENGINEERING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to strictly follow the tender conditions by placing the orders with the petitioner, since the lowest tender of the petitioner is accepted, and a further direction not to place orders with any one else, for the supply of the implements, for which tender was called for vide tender notification Rc.No.E/7 of 98, dated 3-1-1998.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that as per the tender notification called for, the petitioner was the second lowest tenderer regarding the supply of all the items required under the tender notification dated 3-1-1998. But respondents 1 to 3 could not have placed the orders with other tenders and, therefore, the action of the respondents in placing the orders with other tenderers, whose tender rates are higher than the petitioner, is illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) By filing counter affidavit on behalf of the Official respondents as well as the proposed respondent, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that after submitting respective tenders in pursuance of the tender notification, all the tenderers were called for negotiations on 19-2-1998, 24-2-1998 and 5-3-1998. On all these occasions, the petitioner and other tenderers were present. The Official respondents confirmed the reduced rates of other tenderers and the petitioner's lowest rates were also confirmed. All the tenderers, except the petitioner, have entered into agreements with the respondents as per the rates offered in the negotiations/meetings held before 8-4-1998. But in the meanwhile, the petitioner, instead of coming forward to enter into agreement, approached this Court by way of filing the Writ Petition No.6365 of 1998 alleging that before the stipulated date, all the tenderers have entered into agreement and Official respondents have placed orders with them. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by order dated 11-3-1998 as being premature. The respondents further contended that they issued office letter to the petitioner to confirm his rates quoted in his tender. The petitioner vide his reply dated 17-3-1998 confirmed the rales. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued letter dated 11-5-1998 vide Rc.No.E/7 of 1998 requesting the petitioner to attend the office for entering into agreement before 13-5-1998. But the petitioner did not turn up. The Official respondents, having no other alternative, placed orders with other tenderers regarding different makings and companies as per the choice of the beneficiaries, that is, marginal and small farmers for whom the scheme is sought to be introduced, by the Central Government. They further contend that since the petitioner did not turnup by 13-5-1998, to execute agreement in terms of the said letter, he could not complain of the action of the Official respondents in placing orders with other tenderers whose tenderers were accepted.