Disposed

Sri Sai Enterprises v. The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation limited

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Sept 2021WP/19990/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged fresh tenders issued after he was declared L1. Court held that since a representation regarding consent for excess charges was pending before the CM Director, tenders should be deferred and the department directed to verify the representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to verify petitioner's representation, take appropriate action, and defer finalization of new tenders.

Sri Sai Enterprises Vs The Andhra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19990 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the action of the second respondent, in floating the tenders vide S pecification No. e - Proc.No.56&57/2021-2022 for carrying out operation and maintenance, including watch and ward, housekeeping & gardening, MRT Assistance etc., in respect of 132 KV sub-Stations at Gajuwaka Division in OMC Circle, Visakhapatnam and 132 KV sub-Station at Srikakulam Division in OMC Circle, Srikakulam vide e -tender No. e - Proc.28/2021-2022 and e -Proc.33/2021-2022.

¶5

Heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶6

According to the petitioner, he is the existing contractor for the above said work. The Chief Engineer, APTRANSCO, Visakhapatnam-second respondent herein floated the tenders on 14.06.2021 for all the eight divisions in the Visakhapatnam Zone and the last date fixed for submission of tenders was 28.06.2021. The technical bid was opened on 28.06.2021 at 6.00 p.m., wherein the petitioner herein got qualified and the authorities opened the price bid at 7.00 p.m. on the said date and declared the petitioner as L1. It is further stated that the estimate contract value is Rs.11,14,71,784/-.

¶7

administrative/supervision charges on the estimated contract value

¶8

AVSS,J W.P.No.19990 of 2021

¶9

¶10

and, on 26.08.2021, according to the petitioner herein, he was called for negotiations and during the course of the said negotiations, he expressed his consent for 2.89% excess and the petitioner herein also submitted a representation to the said effect on 26.08.2021 to the Chief Engineer, APTRANSCO, Visakhapatnam-second respondent herein.

¶11

While the things being so, a fresh tender notification, dated 01.09.2021, which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition, came to be issued calling for the bids afresh for the subject subStations. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said action of the respondents herein, in calling for the tenders afresh, though the petitioner herein emerged as L1, in pursuance of the earlier tender notification, dated 14.06.2021, is highly illegal, arbitrary, and a patent transgression of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in respect of 132 KV sub-Station at Gajuwaka Division in OMC Circle, Visakhapatnam and 132 KV sub-Station at Srikakulam Division in OMC Circle, Srikakulam, second respondent herein issued a Memo, dated 27.08.2021, granting extension in favour of the existing contractors. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned action is also highly discriminatory and, on this ground also, the impugned fresh tender process cannot be sustained.

¶12

Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that, in respect of the subject works, since the Department received single tender, respondents are proceeding with the process of inviting tenders afresh.

¶13

AVSS,J W.P.No.19990 of 2021

¶14

¶15

It is also the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the issue is now pending consideration before the Chairman & Managing Director of the APTRANSCO, Vijayawada, including the request of the petitioner in his representation, dated 26.08.2021. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, though in respect of Gajuwaka Division of Visakhapatnam Circle the Department received single valid tender, the bid offered by one Mr.P.Narayana Rao came to be accepted by the respondents and the Department entrusted the work in his favour and, according to the learned counsel, the impugned action is also liable to be treated as illegal on the said ground.

¶16

According to the information available before this Court, since the issue, as regards the request made by the petitioner vide representation, dated 26.08.2021, wherein the petitioner expressed his consent for 2.89% excess instead of 4.3% is pending consideration before the Chairman & Managing Director, APTRANSCO-first respondent herein, this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, deems it appropriate and apposite to dispose of the present Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to verify the representation, dated 26.08.2021, submitted by the petitioner herein, and take appropriate action/pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, taking into consideration the issues raised by the petitioner herein in his representation, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that, till a decision is taken by the respondents, as indicated supra, finalisation of the tenders, if

¶17

AVSS,J W.P.No.19990 of 2021

¶18

¶19

any, received pursuant to the impugned tender notification, shall be deferred.

¶20

Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶22

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶23

13^th September, 2021. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order today. B/o Tsy

Sri Sai Enterprises v. The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sai Enterprises v. The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Santhi Vs Union of India

Gavara Tirumala Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rayapudi Nageswara Rao, Guntur and Another Vs Aphb, Hyd and Another

Jaggavarapu Venugopala Reddy, Vs A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited

Sunkavalli Dhanamjayudu Vs The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation

Sri.G. Nithin Sai Vs The Union of India