A SUDHAKER REDDY Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A tender notice, dated 7,8.2009, was issued by the first respondent- University in relation to the infrastructure development works for 2nd Phase at its College of Engineering, Nachupally, Karimnagar District. The work was estimated at Rs.21,77,77,568/- and it was required to be completed within 21 months. The award of contract involved the process of technical bid and price bid. Previous experience of execution of works of similar nature is one of the important conditions. The petitioner, the second respondent- Company, and certain others submitted their tenders.

(2.) The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 26.8.2009, to the first respondent stating that the tender submitted by the second respondent- Company cannot be acted upon at all. It was stated that the Managing Director of the second respondent, by name Sri KM. V. Prasada Rao, was registered as a Special Class Contractor in his individual capacity and after he promoted the Company, he transferred his experience as a Contractor to the Company and thereby, he became denuded of his experience. He contends that despite this development, the Managing Director has participated in bids in his individual capacity and secured contracts of very high magnitude from the third respondent. According to the petitioner, this act of the Managing Director of the Company amounts to corrupt and fraudulent practices as defined under Clause 31 of the conditions appended to the tender notification and thereby, the Company incurred disqualification. His grievance is that though several facts pleaded by him were found to be true and borne out by record, the University did not disqualify the Company.

(3.) The first respondent filed a counter- affidavit denying the allegations. It stated that acting on the representation submitted by the petitioner, explanation was called for, from the second respondent as well as the agency concerned, which awarded the contract. It is further stated that after examining the remarks offered by them, the University arrived at a conclusion that the complaint of the petitioner has no basis.