KOVVURU AND COMPANY Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER NANDYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner firm claims to be a Special Class Contractor. It is stated that the petitioner has taken up several contract works for the State Government and has successfully completed such works. On 14-10-1997 the first respondent issued a notice calling for tenders from contractors for certain works. The petitioner had submitted his tender for the work "Earth work excavation for seating of lining and providing lining of minors and sub-minors of Pandlapuram major in Block No.VIII of SRBC". It is submitted that the petitioner's tender was the lowest and other persons who had participated had quoted higher rates than the petitioner. The respondents did not allot the work to the petitioner but cancelled the tenders and fresh tenders have been invited now vide notice CR No.2952-In/LN-4166-IN dated 20th August, 1999. The last date for obtaining tenders is upto 21st September, 1999 and the tenders will be opened on 23rd September, 1999. The petitioner applied for tender documents in accordance with the procedure laid down in the tender notice and submitted demand draft for Rs.5,000/-.

(2.) On 3rd September, 1999 he was informed that his application for supply of the documents was rejected. This letter has been challenged in this writ petition. The contents of the letter are reproduced herein below: "With reference to your application 2nd cited, you are informed that as per clause (1) of tender notice first cited, your application for bid documents for the work of "Earth work excavation for seating of lining and providing lining for minors and sub-minors of Pandlapuram major in Block No.VIII" is rejected, as you have quoted the high rates for the . same work earlier during 1997 (i.e., 31.63%) and not furnished the rational justification for the same. The Demand Draft No.045018, dated 27-8-1999 for Rs.5,000/- of State Bank of India, Proddutur is herewith returned."

(3.) When this petition came up before this Court on 14-9-1999 the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appeared and sought time for instructions. Today the matter was heard. Counter has not been filed, but the learned Counsel for respondents argued the matter on the basis of instructions she received from the respondents.