Disposed

Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Handling And Transport Contractors v. The Union of India

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024WP/20458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning the cancellation of tender notices and award of a transport contract to a higher bidder at FCI, the Court disposed of the matter by directing respondents to submit the Dispute/Grievance Redressal Committee's report within a specified time, noting that alternative arrangements have been made pending the inquiry. The petition for a fresh tender was not entertained.

What did the court decide?

Ordered respondents Nos. 3 to 6 to submit the committee's report within a specified period; respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to pass an order within two weeks thereafter.

Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Handling And… — Company and Corporate | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI,

¶2

.-V

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 20458 OF 2024 ^

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Handling And Transport Contractors, Rep. by its Managing Partner, V.Srinivasulu Reddy,^{S/o.VaraguruChinna} Narsi Reddy, Age- 54 years, at H.No.21-40A, S.K.D.Colony, 3rd Road, Adoni-518301, Kurnool District, AP

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs,^{FoodandPublic} Distribution, Rep. by its Secretary, Krishi Bhavan,^{NewDelhi-110001}

¶14

The Food Corporation of India, 16-20, Barakhamba^{Lane,New-Delhi-} 110001, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director

¶15

The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India,^{ZonalOffice(South),} at No.3, Haddows Road, Chennai -6

¶16

The General Manager (Regional), Food Corporation^{ofIndia,Regional} Office, Amaravati, at Rajanarendra Building, D.No.74-14-2A,^Krishna Nagar, Patamata, Enamalakuduru Road,Vijayawada-520007

¶17

The Assistant General Manager, Food Corporation^{ofIndia,Regional} Office, Amaravati, at Rajanarendra Building, D.No.74-14-2A,^Krishna Nagar, Patamata,enamalakuduru Road,Vijayawada-520007

¶18

The Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India,^{DivisionalOffice,} Kurnool, at 2"'^ Floor, KSR Complex, Kurnool - 518005,^{AndhraPradesh}

¶19

Sri Mylapalli Srinivasa Rao, Assistant General Manager,^Food .

¶20

Corporation of India, Regional Office, Amaravati, Rajanarendra

¶21

Building, D.No.74-14-2A, Krishna Nagar, Patamata.enamalakuduru Road, Vijayawada-520007

¶22

M/s.Ganesh Trading Company, Shop No.2-1/17, Bytipet,^Betamcherla Village and Mandal, Nandyala District - 518599, Andhra^Pradesh,Rep. by its Proprietor Bhaskara Reddy Panyam Obul

¶23

...RESPONDENTS.

¶24

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction,^{moreparticularly} one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the^{actionoftheofficial} Respondents in cancelling six tender notices dt.26.6.2023, 17.7.2023, 23.11.2023, 8.2.2024, 25.3.2024 and 23.4.2024 issued^{bytheRespondent} PCI for appointment of Regular Handling and Internal^{TransportContractor} at Food Storage Depot, Timmancherla, as the Petitioner^{wastheLIbidder,} who quoted Rs. 1,54,37,978.60/- and accepting 8'^ Respondents^bidofRs. 1,58,34,122.95/- quoted in response to 7*'' Tender^{Noticedt.1.7.2024and} also declaring the work order bearing No.RO AP-43012/2/2023-^CONT-RO AP dt.6.9.2024 issued by the 5^^ Respondent in favor^{ofthe8'"Respondent} as I llegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, without jurisdiction, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, vitiated by mala tides and colourable exercise of power and in violation of Articles^{14,19and21ofthe} Constitution of India and consequently set aside the^{tenderprocessunder} the tender notice dt. 1.7.2024 and the work order dt.6.9.2024^anddirectthe Respondent FCI to issue a fresh tender notice and conduct^the tender process in accordance with law without reference to^{the7**^Respondent.,}

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2024 - Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCjDurtmaybe} pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance^{oftheTenderNotice} bearing No. RO AP-43012/2/2023-CONT-RO AP dt.01.07.2024^issuedby

¶26

the Respondent FCI and impugned work order bearing No.RO AP43012/2/2023-CONT-RO AP dt.6.9.2024 issued by the 5*^ Respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS BOBBILI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI PASALA PONNA^RAO,

¶29

DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7: SRI O. UDAY^KUMAR

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.8:—

¶31

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶32

APHC010401272024

¶33

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

¶34

[3329]

¶35

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶38

WRIT PETITION NO; 20458/2024

¶39

Between:

¶40

Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Handling And Transport Contractors

¶41

...PETITIONER

¶42

AND

¶43

The Union Of India and Others

¶44

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶46

1.SRINIVAS BOBBILI

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶48

¶49

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶50

The writ petition is filed for following relief;-

¶51

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in canceling six tender notices dated 26.06.2023, 17.07.2023, 23.11. 2023, 08.02.2024, 25.03.2024 and 23.04.2024 issued by the respondent FCI for appointment of Regular Handling & Internal Transport Contractor at Food Storage Depot, Temmanacherla as the petitioner was the LI bidder who quoted Rs.1,54,37,978.60/and accepting 8^^ respondent’s^bid of Rs.1,54,34,122.95/- quoted in response to 7^^ tender notice dated 01.07.2024 an also declaring the work^order

¶52

bearing No.RO AP-43012/2/2023-CON-RO AP dated 06.09.2024 issued by the S"’ respondent in favour of^the 8^^ respondent as illegal, unjust, arbitrary discriminatory, irrational without jurisdiction violative of principles of natural justice vitiated by malafides and colourable exercise of power and in violation of Articles 14,19,^and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the tender process under the tender notice dated 01.07.2024 and the issue a fresh tender notice and conduct the tender process in accordance with law without reference to the respondent and pass such other order”.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the^{learnedcounselfor} the respondents.

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that^the petitioner participated in response to six tender notices issued^{bythe4threspondent,} the Food Corporation of India (FCI), for the appointment^{ofaRegularHandling} and Internal Transport Contractor at the Food Storage^{Depot,Timmanchelra.} The tender notices were issued dated 26.06.2023, 17.07.2023, 23.11.2023, 08.02.2024, 25.03.2024, and 23.04.2024 all were cancelled.^{Thepetitioner,} being qualified and eligible in all respects, became^{theLIbidderoutofsix} bidders. submitted all the required documents. However, the^{7threspondent} disqualified the petitioner contrary to conditions^{oftendernotice.Specifically,} to the 4th tender notice dated 08.02.2024, the petitioner^quoted in response an amount of ?1,54,37,978.60, but the 7th respondent cancelled^thattender notice. Furthermore, the 7th tender notice was issued by the 5th respondent on 01.07.2024, in which the 8th respondent participated^{intheLenderprocess} and became the L1 bidder by quoting ?1,58,34,122.95.^{The5threspondent} selected the 8th respondent's bid and awarded work^{orderon06.09.2024}

¶55

even though it was higher than the petitioner’s bid of ,54,37,978.60.^This action of the 5th respondent is contrary to the terms^and conditions of the tender notice and also contrary to the law. Hence,^{thiswritpetition.}

¶56

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2 to 6 submits that pursuant to the^{provisionsoutlinedinthe} tender documents, specifically under clause XVIII, 'Laws Governing the Contract and Dispute Resolution,' clause (b), he states^asfollows:

¶57

{b) In case of any dispute arising out of and touching upon the contract, the same will be first referred to the Dispute/Grievance Redressal Committee constituted and functioning at the Zonal Office of the Corporation, with a view to settle the disputes. The role of GRC shall cover the period from the date of award of contract. It any dispute remain thereafter, the same wili be settled in the Court of Law having competent jurisdiction.

¶58

It is further submitted that in view of the alternative^redressal mechanism provided under tender the document itself, the said alteration mechanism was invoked and the petitioner^submitted his grievance in accordance with the tender conditions.^{Onreceiptofthe} grievance, the 3rd respondent invoked his jurisdiction^{andappointeda} committee to inquire into the matter and directed to submit^areport,in order to pass an appropriate order or to take a decision^inaccordance with the terms of the tender notice. He further submits that the committee is conducting an inquiry regarding the petitioner^grievance,

¶59

who has also been issued a notice for this inquiry. It will take some time for the committee to submit its report after a detailed investigation. Given that the petitioner has invoked an alternative remedy, he cannot pursue two parallel proceedings namely, the redressal of grievances and the invocation of an extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in light of the alternative remedy already availed by the petitioner.

¶60

He further submits that, pending the inquiry and finalization^of the tender, the 6th respondent issued proceedings dated 14.09.2024, making alternative temporary or ad hoc arrangements to meet the exigencies due to the non-finalization of the tender. These arrangements will be in effect for three months, until^15.12.2024.

¶61

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned^counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is^{oftheviewthatthe} present writ petition can be disposed of by directing respondents Nos. 3 to 6 to submit the committee's report within a specified period. After submission of such report, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pass an appropriate order within a period of two weeks. However, since the respondents have already made alternative arrangements,^there is no need to address any exigencies as raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. The respondents are

¶62

further directed to communicate the order of the 3rd respondent, which

¶63

is to be issued pursuant to the committee's report to the petitioner.

¶64

No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,^shallstand

¶65

closed.

¶66

Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Union of India, Food and Public Distribution, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi -110⁰⁰¹

¶71

The Chairman and Managing Director, Food Corporation of India, 1620, Barakhamba Lane, New-Delhi-110001.

¶72

The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, Zonal Office (South), at No.3, Haddows Road, Chennai -6

¶73

The General Manager (Regional), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Amaravati, at Rajanarendra Building, D.No.74-14-2A,^Krishna Nagar, Patamata, Enamalakuduru Road,Vijayawada-520007

¶74

The Assistant General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Amaravati, at Rajanarendra Building, D.No.74-14-2A,^Krishna Nagar, Patamata, Enamalakuduru Road,Vijayawada-520007

¶75

The Divisional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Kurnool, at 2^^ Floor, KSR Complex, Kurnool - 518005, Andhra Pradesh

¶76

One CC to Sri Srinivas Bobbili, Advocate [OPUC] ,

¶77

One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of A.P.[OPUC]

¶78

One CC to Sri O. Uday Kumar, AdvocateiOPUC]"" 10. Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.20458 of 2024

UOg 2 9 OCT 202') m
^ Curreni Section .
patc

¶85

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Handling And Transport Contractors v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Handling And Transport Contractors v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Janmabhoomi Maa Vooru Committee, Vs Sri. Sasi Bhushan Kumar

Shaik Tippu Sultan Vs Shaik Mahaboob Chand

M Sreenivasula Reddy Vs Sri Shashi Bhushan Kumar

S G N Fayaz Ahmad Vs the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

Mandava Venkata Rao Vs Pothula Rajendra Prasad

Shaik Pentu Saheb Vs Union of India