Dismissed

A.v.Appanna Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Telangana HC3 Jul 2012WP/2187/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to declare refusal of his bids illegal and arbitrary due to alleged unexplained delay in tender consideration. Respondent disclosed petitioner failed to upload correct EMD amount. Petition dismissed as erroneous submission of documents entitled respondents to reject pursuant to tender conditions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition for directions under Article 226 to consider petitioner's bids dismissed as petitioner failed to upload correct EMD particulars.

A.v.Appanna Kumar, Vs The Commissioner — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.2187 of 2012

¶3

Date : 03.07.2012

¶4

Between :

¶5

A.V.Appanna Kumar.

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kakinada & another.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2187 of 2012

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in refusing to consider the bids offered by the petitioner in respect of works notified by the 1^st respondent vide proceedings in Roc.Nos.3362/2010/13-F/E4/11 and 3362/2010/13-F/E4/12, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The Municipal Corporation, Kakinada, has published notice inviting tenders through e-procurement, in Roc.No.3362/2010/ 13-F/E4/11, for providing LED centre lighting from Pragathi College Junction upto Ambedkar Statute at Godarigunta in Division-IV of Kakinada Municipal Corporation. Similarly, it has issued another tender notice in Roc.No.3362/2010/13-F/E4/13 for providing LED centre lighting at Godarigunta main road in the limits of Municipal Corporation of Kakinada. The petitioner has filed tenders online for the above two works and there are others who have also offered their bids online. Issuance of tender forms through e-procurement platform began on 22.12.2011 and the last date for receipt of bids was fixed as 5.00 p.m. on 05.01.2012 and bids were to be opened on 6^th January 2012. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though he is a registered contractor with the respondents and is eligible for award of works, the respondents have refused

¶14

to consider his bids, though the same were submitted online. It is stated that there are no valid reasons for not receiving the bids offered by him.

¶15

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Kakinada. In the counter, while referring to the tender notices and other factual aspects, respondents have denied the various allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that as per the procedure, tenderers have to upload the scanned copy of EMD showing the details of EMD, which is mandatory. It is stated that the petitioner obtained the scanned copies of EMD with incorrect amounts, therefore, for want of correct EMD particulars, the bids of petitioner were not considered. It is also stated that such e-procurement procedure is organized by Andhra Pradesh Technologies Corporation Limited and as the petitioner has not uploaded the required documents as prescribed, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶16

Though it is the case of petitioner that there is no reason for not considering the bids offered by him, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner has not uploaded the required documents with correct particulars. From the averments made in the counter, it is clear that the petitioner has not uploaded the EMD details with correct amounts in the prescribed slot related to the notified works. Inasmuch as the software is so designed to accept the offers only in the event of filing required

¶17

documents, in the absence of uploading the correct EMD particulars, the contention of the petitioner that he has submitted all the required documents, cannot be accepted. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is clear that there is error on the part of petitioner in uploading the scanned copies of EMD. When such conditions are notified in the tender notice, in the absence of uploading correct particulars of EMD, respondents have rightly not considered the bids offered by the petitioner, and any direction to consider such bids offered by the petitioner will run contrary to the tender conditions. As it is stated that there are other bidders apart from the petitioner and the tenders were to be opened on 6^th January 2012, and in view of the stand of respondents in the counter that necessary documents were not uploaded, I do not find any ground for grant of directions as prayed for.

¶18

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel, WPMP.No.2728 of 2012 also stands dismissed.

¶20

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶21

3^rd July 2012 ajr

A.v.Appanna Kumar, v. The Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.v.Appanna Kumar, v. The Commissioner

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

Ch.Saritha, Vs The Municipal Corporation of Warangal

Mrs. Hasan Uzzaman Begum, D/o. Late Mirza Mohsin Ali Khan, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Gulam Zainulabideen Vs The Deputy Commissioner

St. Peters Educational Society Vs Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

V.M.C.Contract Workers and Labour Union,Municipal Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its

Kalagarla Achutha Mani Vs Tlhe Commissioner