Dismissed

G Lakshmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Apr 2023WP/4996/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a tender notification for bus station stalls. The petitioner, fearing financial loss if the tender terms were flawed, chose not to bid. The court held that without participating, the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the validity of the tender.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for lack of locus standi as the petitioner did not participate in the tender.

G Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

'U'

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

c ■
k

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 4996 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

““ Business, R/o D.No. 41-

¶10

and ...petitioner

¶11

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Secretary to Government Transport Department, Secretariat of A.P., Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur uisirict,

¶12

corporation (APSRTC), represented

¶13

®y Vice Chairman and Managing Director, RTC House, 1st Floor, NTR Station, Vijayawada, NTR District.

¶14

1. The District Public Transport Officer, APSRTC, Guntur District, Guntur

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing tender notification in No. 02/797 (01)/2023-DPTO (G) dt 14.02.2023 in respect of Stall Nos. 85. 86 87, 88, 89, 70 and 72, NTR Bus Station, Guntur, Guntur District without application of mind, unjust, malafide, illegal, arbitrary and without considering the statutory rules., Andhra. Pradesh Building Rules 2017 and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

• XU under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may pleased to grant interim stay of tender notification in No. 02/797 (01 )/2023DPTO (G) dt 14.02.2023 in respect of Stall Nos. 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 70 and 72, pass such^*^^'°"’ District pending the disposal of writ petition and

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S. T V SRI DEVI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR TRANSPORT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 3 : SRI SOLOMON RAJU M, SC FOR APSRTC

¶22

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

W.P.No.4996 of 2023 VS,J

¶26

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.4996 of 2023

¶28

ORDER;

¶29

The present writ petition came to’ be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶30

tt “...to issue a writ, order or ■ direction more ptirticularly .one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3"' respondent in issuing tender notification in No.02/797(01)/2023—DPT0(G), dt.14.02.2023, in respect of Stall Nos.85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 70 and 72, NTR Bus Station, Guntur, Guntur District without application of mind, unjust, malafide, illegal, arbitrary and without considering the statutory rules Andhra Pradesh Building Rules 2017 and violative ofArt. 14 and 21 of Constitution ofIndia and pass such...” 2. The present writ petition is filed challenging the tender notification dated 14.02.2023, inviting tenders for allotment of canteens, stalls/shops i.e, Fruits and fruit juice. soda and cool drinks, fast food. Sweets 85 bakery, cycle and scooter stands etc., in pucca/open spaces, in the bus stations in Guntur District. On the ground that it is without obtaining the master plan from the Guntur Municipal Corporation, as well as the Andhra Pradesh Building Rules, 2017 and also without there being any setbacks and height for all types of non high rise buildings.

¶31

¶32

W.P.No.4996 of 2023 VS.J

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is intending to participate in the tenders, he is unable to submit the tender form with a fear of loss of EMD, which would cause financial loss and hardship to the petitioner.

¶34

The learned Standing Counsel had submitted before this Court, a copy of the instructions dated 02.03.2023, wherein It IS stated that the sealed tenders were opened at IS.OOhrs. on 28.02.2023, by the Tender Committee consisting of Deputy Chief Traffic Manager(O&C),. Nellore as Chairman, Accounts Officer, Guntur, Assistant Traffic Manager, NTR Bus Station, Guntur & Deputy Executive Engineer, (Civil), Guntur in the presence of Bidders & Security personnel and the tenders have be. en finalized thereafter. The learned Standing Counsel further stated that the petitioner, even without participating in the said tenders have I filed the present writ petition.

¶35

On a perusal of the affidavit, it appears that the petitioner failed to participate in the said tenders with a fear that the respondents without following the building rules, have called for the tenders and as per the condition No.73 of the tender notification, once the tenders are submitted, it shall not be permitted to be withdrawn. In view of the said condition, the petitioner is afraid that if at all he participates in the tenders and *** rtf**

¶36

¶37

W.P.No.4996 of 2023 VS.J

¶38

he faces some problem in future because of non-compliance of the building rules by the respondents, he would be put to financial loss and hardship. 6. In view of the above, this Court feels it relevant to refer to a judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 458 in B. Himmatlal Agrawal v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. ltd., under similar circumstances held as follows:

¶39

¶40

“33. The terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its Joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The courts can scrutinize the awa:rd of the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness orfavouritism. It is entitled 3 to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical.

¶41

34. In another judgment in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State ofKarnataka reported at (2012) 8 SCC 216 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the view that there is a very restricted scope for Courts interference insofar as the conditions and eligibility criteria set out in the tender is concerned. The Hon’ble Apex Court hasfurther held that the Courts would not interfere only because it feels that some other terms in the tender would havefairer, wiser or more logical."

¶42

¶43

W.P.No.4996 of 2023 vs,J

¶44

But, however, it is clear that if at all the petitioner

¶45

has found any defect in the tender notification, it is for the petitioner to decide whether to participate in the said tenders or not, but, cannot insist the respondents to impose certain conditions and on the other hand, the petitioner, even without participating in the tenders, do not have any Iccus standi to challenge the tender notification dated 14.02.2023.

¶46

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶47

There'shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any.

¶49

shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1. One CC to SRI. T V SRI DEVI Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT .High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CC to SRI SOLOMON RAJU M, SC FOR APSRTC [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies MSR

¶55

¶56

HIGH COURT

¶57

DATED: 11/04/2023

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.4996 of 2023

¶60

DISMISSING OF WP AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS

¶61