SIDDI VINAYAKA INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for respondent No.1, Sri A. Yadav Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for TSEWIDC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing for respondent No.4, and Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.5.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the official respondents, without taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.51, Industries and Commerce (MSME) Department, dtd. 1/6/2010, and the provisions of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, 'the Act'), have issued the impugned tender notification prescribing onerous conditions only with a view to eliminate the petitioners, which are Small Scale Industries (MSME), from participating in the tender process. To support the said contention, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to some of the tender conditions, more specifically Clauses 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.5, 2.2.2 (d) and 2.2.4. The learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. International Trading Co. and another (2003) 5 Supreme Court Cases 437 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and others AIR 1979 SC 1628: (1979) 3 SCC 489.

(3.) The period of supply of Dual Desks (Type I, II, III, IV) shall be 04 (four) months and the milestones of supply : -