Dismissed

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Sept 2024WP/20580/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the disqualification of a petitioner's bid in a tender for fortified rice kernels. The petitioner claimed the experience clause was illegal and contrary to the tender notice. The High Court dismissed the writ, upholding the tendering authority's reliance on the corrigendum clarifying the experience requirement.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 20580 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

KCP Nutrritious Pvt Ltd. Office at 6-18-285/1, New NGO Colony Nizamabad, Telangana Rep by its Director Mr. Kaparthi Shravan Kumar

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

AND

¶9

Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Department^of

¶10

Civil Supplies Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Guntur^District

¶11

Supplies Corporation Limited, IVth Floor

¶12

H No. 10-152/1, Kanuru, Vijayawada Rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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, one more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring clause 2.5 of Request for Proposal dated 3008-2024 vide File No.FCS51 -16025/70/2024-PDS SECAPSCSCL for supply of Raw Fortified Rice Kernel issued by the 2nd Respondent to the extent it requires three years of past experience in supplying fortified rice kernel and in not processing/accepting the Petitioner's bid by insisting on the said impugned condition as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the 2 nd Respondent to process the Petitioners bid without insisting on the condition mentioned in clause 2.5 of Request for Proposal.

¶15

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition 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 to direct the 2"'^ Respondent to process the bid/application without insisting on the condition mentioned in clause 2.5 of Request for Proposal issued vide File No.FCS51-16025/70/2024-PDS SEC-APSCSCL, pending the disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.BADRINATH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P.HEMA CHANDRA

¶20

The Court made the following order:

¶21

¶22

APHC010404982024

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 20580/2024

¶28

Between;

¶29

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt Ltd

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶34

1.P BADRINATH

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶36

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶37

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶38

The writ petition is filed for following relief:-

¶39

to issue a Writ order or direction one more particulariyⁱⁿ the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring clause 2^5of Request for Proposal dated 30 082024 vide File No FCS51 16025/70/2024PDS SEC-APSCSCL for supply of Raw Fortified Rice Kernel Issued by the 2nd Respondent^tothe extent it requires three years of past experience in supplying fortified rice kernel and in not processing/accepting the Petitioners bid by insisting on the said impugned condition^as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of^fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 19 1 g of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to process the Petitioners bid without insisting on the condition^mentionedin

¶40

¶41

clause 2 5 of Request for Proposal and pass such other order” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the^learned counsel for the respondents.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that^{thepetitioner} is a registered company under the provisions of the^{CompaniesAct,} 2013 and has experience in various varieties of rice^processing more particularly for exclusive production of fortified rice kernels. On 18.04.2022, the 2"^^ respondent issued a tender notice^{forthesupplyof} fortified rice kernels throughout the State Targeted^{PublicDistribution} System under the National Food Security Act, 2013.^{Pursuanttothe} tender notice, the petitioner submitted his bid, having^qualifiedin all respects. But to the surprise of petitioner, his tender^{wasdisqualified} on 17.09.2024, stating the reason that the petitioner^{didnotmeetthe} eligibility criteria as per the terms and conditions^{ofthetendernotice,} of more particularly the precondition regarding the supply^quantity fortified rice kernels in respect of corrigendum (Zone-ll). The said disqualification of the 2 nd respondent assailed in the present writ petition.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits^that,as Clause 2.5 of tender notice which indicates that minimum^quantity per 4000 metric tons should have been supplied to any State^Government or Central Government or Public Undertakings during^theimmediate

¶44

past three years, the tender notice does not reveals about mention of fortified rice kernels. However, in the impugned rejection/disqu^alified order clarifies that this required quantity of fortified^{ricekernelsshould} be supplied. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's tender is contrary to Clause 2.5 of the tender notice.

¶45

2.5. Experience- To be eligible to participate a minimum quantity of 2000 MTs to any State Government, Central Government, Public Sector Undertaking or State-owned Civil Supplies Corporation during the immediate past three financial years i.e., 2021-22, 2022-23 & 2023-24.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the supply of PDS rice with kernels only came into existence in the year 2022, in view of the notification issued by the Government of India, which applies exclusively to public distribution only. Therefore, the requirement for three years of experience and the supply^ofthesaid quantity within two years is contrary to the proceedings of the Government of India dated 18.04.2024. He also submits that the introduction of Clause 2.5 itself is contrary to the circular issued by the Central Government of India, and therefore the rejection of the petitioner's tender is contrary to the tender notice much less the circular of the Central Government. Hence the writ petition.

¶47

On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents furnished written instructions wherein it is stated that the petitioner place on record only tender notice leaving corrigendum which

¶48

¶49

¶50

was issued 06.09.2024 which clarified the nature of the rice required under Clause 2.5, wherein it is categorically and specifically^statedthat the supply of quantity required is in the form of fortified rice kernels only, therefore the petitioner does not have much experience and eligibility for the supply of fortified rice kernels.

¶51

The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that fortified rice kernels were introduced in the year 2022, is not true and correct, as the project began as a private initiative/pilot project on 15.03.2019. Furthermore, he substantiates that other varieties of fortified rice kernels have been supplied to the poorer^{sectionsofthe} population since 2021-2022 across all districts. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that no one has prior experience of three years in the supply of fortified rice kernels cannot be accepted.

¶52

In view of the reasons stated above, the rejection of the petition cannot be found fault, as it is in accordance with the tender notice as amended by the corrigendum dated 06.09.2024. The petitioner^hasnot made out a case for interference with the tender process pursuant to the tender notice dated 30.08.2024. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶54

¶55

//true copy// SD/- k.srinivasa raju assistant^^egistrar SECTIO fficer 1. One CC to Sri P Badrinath, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

To,

¶57

One CC to Sri P Hema Chandra, Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to GP for Civil Supplies, High Court of Andhra Pradesh • [OUT]

¶59

Two CD Copies

¶60

RAM

¶61

¶62

• HIGH COURT A”

¶63

DATED:19/09/2024

¶64

ORDER

¶65

X 2 “i JAN 2':'j r
O 69
. Current beciion

¶66

WP.No.20580 of 2024

¶67

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kcp Nutrritious Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Mandali Lakshamana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. M.D. Sobjee, Automobile Engineering Works Vs Visakhapatnam Port Trust

Pereira English Noble School Vs the Regional Provident Fund

M/s. V.S.S. Constructions, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vantapalli Srinivas, Vs The Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, A.P

N Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh