Appeal against an order quashing a tender notification which barred Stage-I contractors. The High Court held that excluding Stage-I contractors was not arbitrary and that the challenged notification did not suffer from malafides.
The writ appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No.1143 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)
1. The appellants (hereinafter referred to as petitioners) in this appeal are the petitioners before the learned single Judge, whose judgment dated 05.07.2013 in W.P. No.10404 of 2013 is in challenge before us.
2. The reference of the parties is as in the writ petition.
3. In the Writ Petition, the grievance as espoused by the petitioners is to the effect, the tender notification dated 15.03.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent is a tailor made one to suit the respondents 4 to 8 and further to eliminate and disqualify the existing pamolien oil transport contractors, like the petitioners, and as such they seek to quash the same.
4. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the decision of the respondent No.2–A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (for short, ‘Corporation’) in withdrawing the earlier notification dated 20.02.2013 and issuing a fresh notification dated 15.3.2013 by removing the bar of participation of Stage-I Contractors in the tender process is neither arbitrary nor vitiated by mala fides.
5. Apart from the various grounds raised on merits, the order of the learned Single Judge is assailed before us on the ground
that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the miscellaneous petition filed for amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. It is pointed out by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants / writ petitioners filed a detailed affidavit in support of W.P.M.P. No.20988 of 2013 in which it was specifically pleaded that the respondents 4, 7 & 8 were disqualified from participation in the tender process and that the tender conditions were framed to suit the unofficial respondents and that the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in disqualifying the respondents 4, 7 & 8 is illegal, arbitrary and vitiated by mala fides. The learned Senior Counsel would urge that on account of non-consideration of the averments of the additional affidavit and the amendment of prayer as prayed for in W.P.M.P.No.20988 of 2013, the order of the learned Single Judge is required to be set aside and the Writ Appeal is liable to be allowed on that ground alone.
6. On verification of the record, we found that there was no order on the petition for amendment of the writ petition. Therefore, when it was pointed out by us that in such circumstances the proper remedy would be to move the learned Single Judge by way of review, the learned senior counsel by waiving the objection, requested that the pleading and contentions in the amendment petition (W.P.M.P. No.20988 of 2013) may be considered in the writ appeal itself instead of the appeal being dismissed with a direction to avail the remedy of review.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have also expressed no objection for this Court to consider the request of the appellants’ counsel and prayed to dispose of the appeal
basing on the material on record.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and perused the material available on record.
9. The 2nd respondent–A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, issued a Notification dated 20.02.2013 (Notification No.1) calling for tenders from eligible contractors to transport palmolien oil. In the said notification a threshold turnover of Rs.3 Crores was fixed as eligibility criteria and with an embargo on Stage-I contractors in participation, to participate in the tender process. On 12.03.2013 the said tender notification was withdrawn. Later, on 15.03.2013 the impugned notification was issued calling for eligible contractors to participate in the tender, which was in two stages of technical bid and commercial bid. In the impugned notification the turnover of Rs.3 Crores was stipulated as the eligibility criteria and only the stage 2 contractors were made ineligible and prohibited to participate. Petitioners participated in the tender i.e. the 1st petitioner has submitted his bid and quoted for Zone-1 and the 2nd petitioner participated and quoted for Zones-5 and 6. Initially they were disqualified on the ground of their not satisfying the criteria of Rs.3 Crores turnover. However, the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment following the ratio laid down in New Horizons Ltd., Vs. Union of Indi a[1] , s. Kireetendranath Reddy Vs. A.P. Transc o[2] , M.V.V. Satyanarayana Vs. Engineer-In-Chief[3] and PBR Select Infra Projects Vs. Commissioner of Tender s[4] , had declared the petitioners to be eligible tenders. After the Judgment of the learned single Judge the price bids have been opened and the 1st
petitioner became successful bidder with respect to works in Zone-1 and 2nd petitioner was not in the zone of consideration.
10. In the impugned judgment learned single Judge formulated three points:
11. So far as the Point No.1 is concerned the learned single Judge found in favour of the petitioners and the Point No.3 was not dealt with. The only issue which survived for consideration was Issue No.2 and the same was negatived.
12. The learned senior counsel Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, would submit that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge are unsustainable and the learned Single Judge has erred in appreciating the facts as pleaded and submitted before him and especially failed to take into consideration of the specific averments as brought out in the amendment petition i.e., W.P.M.P. No.20988 of 2013. It is also contended that the finding of the
learned Single Judge that merely because the individual officers were not made in their personal names as party respondents, the contention of mala fides is not sustainable, is contra to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in State of Punjab Vs. Ramjilal and other s[5] ; the very fact of issuance of the impugned notification within three days of the withdrawal of the earlier notification with changed criteria, making Stage-I contractors also to be eligible to participate in the tender, by itself speaks of the fact that the tender conditions were altered to suite the respondents 4 to 8. On the principle res ipso loquitur there is no independent material that is needed to arrive at the conclusion o f malafide action of the official respondents. He would further submit that the learned single Judge had failed to take into consideration of the fact that 8th Respondent and 8th Respondent’s sister organization were black listed and they were not eligible to participate in the tender process. He draws the specific attention to paras 7 to 9 of the amendment affidavit in W.P.M.P. No.20988/2013 and would submit that on account of ignoring those averments, the learned Single Judge’s conclusions are erroneous and prays to set aside the tender notification. The averments on which the learned counsel relies are extracted hereunder:
“7. I submit that the following facts conclusively establish the fraud played by Respondents 4, 7 and 8 on the Corporation and mala fides on the part of the Respondents 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8.
a(i) 8th Respondent is having association with Gemini Edibles & Fats India Pvt. Ltd., Krishnapatnam and the same is evident from the profile uploaded by the 8th respondent itself along with its tender and it is further clear from the consignment Note dt.09.02.2013 that 8th Respondent is transporting the oils of Gemini Edibles & Fats India Pvt ltd.,
a(ii) While such is the fact situation, 8th Respondent gave false Affidavit – II to the Corporation stating that it or its representatives are not having any link with the Oil Millers/Oil Millers Association/Oil Millers Lorry Association/Oil Wholesale and Retail Dealers etc.,
a(iii) Since 8th respondent is having association with oil millers, it is prohibited from participating in the Tender process as per Condition No.2.2 and 2.5 of the impugned tender notification dt.15.3.2013, yet Respondents 2 & 3, instead of disqualifying the 8th Respondent, accepted the tender of 8th Respondent and awarded the contract to it. This is enough to show that the entire tender process is vitiated by malafides.
b(i) As a matter of fact, M/s. Lucky Trading Company, Tadepalli, Guntur District, which is the family firm of Sri Usman, Managing partner of 8th Respondent, was blacklisted and barred from participating in any Tenders by the 2nd Respondent with a direction to communicate the same and its associated companies to all other State Government Agencies and other State Governments vide orders dt.26.3.2011. It is most relevant to point out in the last fifteen years, Respondents 2 & 3 never revoked the orders of blacklisting.
b(ii) While such is the fact situation, 8th respondent gave another false Affidavit-I to the corporation stating that it or its representatives were never blacklisted by the 2nd respondent at any time.
b(iii) Since the family firm of Sri Usman, managing Director of the 8th Respondent, has been blacklisted and barred from participating in government tenders, it is prohibited from participating in the impugned Tender process as per Condition No.2.1, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.7 of the impugned tender notification dt.15.3.2013.
b(iv) Since, the family firm of the 8th Respondent was blacklisted, though 8th Respondent filed its tender for the year 2011-2012 for transportation of Rice agreeing to transport the same @8%, tender was awarded to Mr.MLT Reddy, who quoted 13%, which is in excess of 5% than that
of the 8th respondent.
b(v) Despite all the ‘disqualifications’ of the 8th Respondent, which are within the knowledge of Respondents 2 & 3, they, instead of disqualifying the 8th Respondent, accepted the tender of 8th Respondent and awarded the contract to it. This is enough to show that the entire tender process is vitiated by malafides.
c(i) As per the tender conditions, every tenderer has to furnish hire agreements and fitness certificates of the vehicles and if any tender failed to furnish those certificates, their tenders will be rejected.
c(ii) In fact, Condition No.2.9 specifically mandates that in case of hired vehicles, the tenderer should furnish hire agreement with the owners for a period of one year, otherwise, they are not eligible to participate in tenders.
c(iii) But in the instant case, for Zone VI, 4th Respondent filed its tender, but it did not furnish Hire Agreements for ten (10) vehicles and for Zone VII also, 4th respondent filed its tender, but it did not furnish Hire Agreements for ten (10) vehicles.
c(iv) Despite the same, Respondents 2 & 3, instead of disqualifying the 4th Respondent, accepted the tenders of 4th Respondent and awarded contract to it. As a matter of fact, several occasions, 2nd Respondent rejected various tenders for not furnishing Hire Agreements.
c(v) For example, 2nd Respondent rejected the tender of Sri Allu Venkata Phaneendra Varma for not submitting Hire Agreement along with its tender for Zone III for P.Oil for 2012-13. But when it comes to the case of 4th Respondent, Respondents 2 & 3 accepted the Tender of 4th Respondent and awarded contract to it.
d(i) Similarly, articulated vehicles, which are only trailers but not trucks, should not be used for transportation of consignments of the Corporation more so Palmolien Oil pouches of 1 ltd and the destination of the pouches is MLS points which are located in small villages, to which the transportation through heavy trailers having capacity of 40
MTs is impossible. In fact, 2nd respondent never permitted the articulated vehicles, but now Respondents 2 & 3 for obvious reasons, permitted the articulated vehicles, but now Respondents 2 & 3 for obvious reasons, permitted the articulated vehicles of Respondents 4, 7&8.
d(ii) In fact, in the tender document at Condition No.2.9, the Corporation specifically mentioned that it requires only Trucks.
Yet, 4th Respondent deployed Four articulated vehicles fro Zone VII, Four for Zone VI and One for Zone IV,
8th respondent deployed Nine articulated vehicles for Zone II and
7th Respondent deployed One articulated vehicles for Zone III.
d(iii) Thus Respondents 4, 7 & 8 violated condition No.2.8 of the Tender Notification, yet Respondents 2 & 3 instead of disqualifying the unofficial respondents 4, 7 & 8 permitted them to participate in the tender process and awarded the contract to them.
e(i) More than all these issues, I respectfully submit that Respondents 4, 7 & 8 are formed into a cartel/syndicate to get undue advantage at the cost of the corporation and the writ petitioners and the like.
e(ii) This fact is evident from the information furnished by the 2nd respondent under RTI Act vide proceedings dt.18.4.2013 i.e. subsequent to the filing of the above writ petition, which shows that Respondents 4, 7 & 8 are being represented by the same people in all of their Zones. Same six persons namely:
(1) V. Siva Sankar Rao, (2) V. Malleswara Rao. (3) Sk. John Valli, (4) Ch. Vijaya Lova Raju, (5) Ch. Srinivasa Rao and (6) T. janardhana Rao.
are representing Respondents 4, 7 & 8 in Zones I (held by 8th respondent), Zone III (held by 7th Respondent) and Zones VI & VII (held by 4th Respondent) for the year 20122013.
e(iii) For example, from the bare perusal Truck Chit cum Delivery Certificate dt.2.4.2013 issued by the 2nd Respondent it is evidently clear that the said Truck Chits for delivery of P.Oil were signed by one Mr.V.Malleswara Rao representing Respondents 4, 7 & 8 for Zones I, III, VI & VII.
e(iv) Thus it is conclusively proved that Respondents 4, 7 & 8 are formed into a syndicate/cartel. Yet, Respondents 2 & 3 instead of rejecting the tenders of all the said unofficial Respondents, accepted their tenders and awarded the contract to it. This is enough to show that the entire tender process is vitiated by malafides.
8. I submit that from the above it is conclusively established that
i. the Respondents 4, 7 & 8 are formed into a cartel / syndicate for their undue advantage and to cause enormous loss to the 2nd Respondent and to illegally appropriate the public money as is evident form the information furnished by the 2nd Respondent under RTI Act and the said cartel / syndicate of the bidders is directly contrary to the system of tenders/auction and as such respondents 4, 7 & 8 should be disqualified;
ii. 8th Respondent should be disqualified for the blacklisting of his family firm, which is in violation of Tender Condition No.2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 & 2.7;
iii. 8th Respondent also should be disqualified for its association with private oil company which is in violation of Tender Condition No.2.2 and 2.5;
iv. Respondents 4 & 7 are liable to be prohibited for their association with 8th Respondent, whose family firm is blacklisted and whose association with private oil company which is in violation of Tender condition No.2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 & 2.7;
v. 4th Respondent’s tender is liable to be rejected for its not submitting hire agreement for twenty vehicles for Zones VI & VII which is in violation of Tender Condition No.2.9;
vi. Respondents 4, 7 & 8 are also liable to be disqualified for deploying articulated vehicles in the place of Trucks which is in violation of Tender Condition No.2.9.
9. As the Respondents 2 & 3 colluded with Respondents 4, 7 & 8, accepted their tenders and awarded contracts to them. If there is no collusion between the Respondents 4, 7 & 8 on one hand and Respondents 2 & 3 on the other hand, Respondents 4, 7 & 8 would have been disqualified from participating not only in the impugned tender process but also in the future tenders also. These facts conclusively proved that the entire tender process is vitiated by mala fides on the part of Respondents, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8. Hence entire tender process is liable to be cancelled by recalling the tender notice dt.15.3.2013.”
13. In W.P.M.P. No.20988 of 2013 the petitioners/ appellants sought amendment of the prayer in the writ petition also as under:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in conducting the tender process the benefit the unofficial respondents and declaring the Tender Condition Nos.3.2(f), 2.3 and 2.12 of Tender Notice NIT No.Mktg/M6/1044/P Oil Tenders/2013-14 dt.15.3.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent, which are framed to suit the unofficial respondents and to disqualify the existing palmolien oil transport contractors; and also declaring the inaction on the part of respondents 1 to 3 in disqualifying the respondents 4, 7 and 8, who violated the tender conditions viz., 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.7 and 2.9, from participating in the tender process; as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, vitiated by malafides and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned Tender Conditions and the consequential tender process and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
14. A counter-affidavit was filed by the 2nd respondent denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.M.P.No.20988 of 2013. There were specific denials with respect to there being any mala fides and showing any favouritism in favour of the respondents 4, 7 and 8. For the purpose of consideration of the controversy in this appeal, we do not find it necessary to refer to all the allegations and counter allegations of the petitioners and respondents as the scope in the writ petition and the writ appeal is limited, primarily concerning that the validity of the tender notification rather than subsequent issues which may arise on the Corporation entering into an agreement with the successful bidder and the method and manner of the tendered job being executed by the successful tenderer. So far as relevant, suffice it to say, the allegations of mala fides, the allegations of 8th respondent or its sister organization being black listed are specifically denied. Further, it was stated that the petitioners are only interested in preventing the Corporation from proceeding with the selection of new transport contractors to benefit the existing transport contractor including the 2nd petitioner, knowing well that the tender called for his only for one year. It was further stated that the 1st petitioner/Managing Partner V. Mallikarjuna Rao who participated in the tender both in his name and his wife’s name, filed the writ petition only after participation in the tender and finding themselves unsuccessful and as such the writ petition was not maintainable.
15. During the arguments, the learned senior counsel being conscious of the fact of the scope of the enquiry and the scope of interference in the matters of tenders by the Court had fairly
confined his arguments mainly on the aspect of the learned Single Judge not accepting the specific allegations of mala fides and the non-consideration by the learned Single Judge of the alleged admissions by the respondents themselves. However, when it is pointed out by the respondents that the 8th respondent’s blacklisting was revoked, the learned senior counsel did not press the said point.
16. At the outset, we would make it clear that we have no quarrel with the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Punjab case (5th Supra) that in every case where malafides are alleged, the individuals are not required to be made as party respondents. Based on the material placed before the Court and on appreciation of the same, it is for the Court to arrive at the conclusions and give a finding with respect to the malafides. In the present case, the allegation of the petitioners is that the cancellation of the tender notice dated 12.03.2013 was only at the instance of the respondents 4,7 and 8 and to enable the respondents 4, 7 and 8 to participate in the tender.
17. To find out the truth or otherwise of the said allegation, the brief allegations of basic eligibility criteria in the tender notification are required to be considered.
1. Tender-I
NIT No.Mktg/M6/1044/P.Oil Tenders/2013-14 dt.20.2.2013
Tender Condition No.2: Tenderers / firms eligible to tender 2.3 Existing Stage-I & Stage-II contractors, F.P. Shop Dealers or their Associates are prohibited from participating in the tenders.
2. Tender-II
NIT No.Mktg/M6/1044/P.Oil Tenders/2013-14 dt.15.3.2013
Tender Condition No.2: Tenderers/firms eligible to tender
18. The only difference between the Tender-I and Tender-II notifications is that the Stage-I contractors were prohibited from participating in the first tender whereas such prohibition is removed in the 2nd Tender Notification and all other tender conditions stand similar in both the notifications.
19. A bare look at the above comparative statement would
reveal that what all has been done by the 2nd respondent Corporation by the impugned tender notification is that even the Stage-I Contractors were made eligible to participate in the tender process. In other words, the Corporation had thrown open the field to more number of participants which would in fact encourage competition and bring down the cost of transport to the Corporation. This act of Corporation makes more number of contractors eligible to participate in the tender process can by no stretch of imagination be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The objective of the Corporation is to get the transportation work done at least cost which would ultimately go to save the money to the Corporation and this object is achieved by encouraging more number of contractors participating in the tender process subject to the tenderers fulfilling a minimum prescribed qualification criteria. As a matter of fact in a given case, the Corporation may even relax any non essential conditions at the time of awarding the contract by safeguarding their interest by stipulating suitable conditions to protect their interest and to ensure the due performance of the obligations undertaken by the contractor. Petitioners who in fact participated in the tendering process and had taken a chance and having found themselves not successful chose to challenge the tender notification. In our opinion, the very conduct of the petitioners would disentitle them to challenge the tender notification and their challenge lacks bona fides. If they were really aggrieved with the very conditions of the tender notification they ought to have challenged the same immediately on issuance of the tender notification i.e., on 15.3.2013 rather than waiting till such time as they came to be aware of their tenders not being considered on account of their not being qualified of the turnover criteria on 3.4.2013. As a matter of fact, this is evident
from the averments made in para Nos.12 and 13 of the affidavit of the petitioners filed in support of the writ petition.
“12. I submit that 2nd respondent having agreed to consider the tender forms of the petitioners by reckoning the total turnover of the partners and firm to satisfy the minimum requirement of Rs.3 crores turnover, ought to have deleted the said condition in the impugned notification, but the 2nd respondent keep the same as it is. Then the petitioners once again requested the 2nd respondent to permit them by considering the turn over of the partners and the firm. Having considered the same, the 2nd respondent permitted the petitioners to make the tender under the impugned notification and the 2nd respondent received 17 application including the applications of the petitioners.
13. I submit that as per the schedule, the respondents 1 to 3, opened the Technical bids on 1.4.2013 and processed the same on 2.4.2013 and opened the commercial bids on 3.4.2013 at 11 p.m informed the petitioners on 3.4.2013 at 3.30 pm that the petitioners’ technical bids are rejected as they cannot satisfy the turnover condition. The said rejection is illegal, unjust and arbitrary apart from creating monopoly and to benefit the unofficial respondents.”
20. As a matter of fact, the 2nd respondent Corporation accepting the judgment of the learned Single Judge had in fact considered the commercial bid of the petitioners by taking into consideration of the turnover of the individual partners of the firms. In the final evaluation of the eligible tenderers only first petitioner became a successful tenderer with respect to Zone-I and the 2nd petitioner though had bid for Zone-V and Zone-VI was not successful.
21. While considering the point No.2, the learned Single Judge had set out in detail the justification as explained by the 2nd
respondent Corporation for canceling the first tender notification and issuing the notification dated 15.03.2013 with modified conditions. The learned Single Judge had accepted the explanations as offered by the 2nd respondent Corporation and found the reasons given by the Corporation as acceptable and justifiable and the Corporation had the right and liberty to do so. Merely because the learned Single Judge in the process of discussion had recorded that the 2nd respondent Corporation’s explanation to be some what sketchy and had expressed a view that the Corporation could have been more specific by itself cannot obliterate the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, there is no challenge and no material for us to take a contra view on this aspect.
22. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge had failed to consider and advert to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition. On a close scrutiny of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the contention of the appellants that the learned Single Judge did not advert to the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition is liable to be rejected.
23. A close reading of the judgment under appeal would reveal that the learned Single Judge in fact had taken into consideration of the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition. This is evident from the fact of the learned Judge’s reference to various aspects which were in fact first time came on record through the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition as under:-
“Before ending the discussion on this Point, it needs to be noted
that the learned Senior Counsel has devoted substantial time arguing on the aspect of the alleged disqualification of respondent No.8. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the profile submitted by respondent No.8 wherein it has claimed that it has experience as a transport contractor with agencies such as respondent No.2, M/s. Hyderabad Industries Ltd., KRIBHCO & Madras Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Gemini Edible Oils and Fats Ltd., among other industries. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that under Clause 2.2 of the NIT, Oil Millers/Oil Millers Association/Oil Mill Lorry Owners Associations or their Associates are prohibited from participating in the tenders. In its profile, respondent No.8 has never claimed that it is an associate of M/s. Gemini Edible Oils and Fats Ltd. It has only claimed that it is an existing transport contractor to the said Company as it is to various other Companies referred to above. Therefore, this submission of the learned Senior Counsel can be referred, only to be rejected. The learned Senior Counsel also laid emphasis on Clause 2.5 of the NIT under which persons or firms blacklisted/Oil Millers/Oil Millers Association/Oil Wholesale or Retail Dealers/Stage-II Contractors/Fair Price Shop Dealers and their representatives or persons or associates, are not eligible to participate in the tenders. He submitted that by order dated 26-3-2011, M/s. Lucky Trading Company, a proprietory concern owned by the son of the proprietor of respondent No.8, was blacklisted by respondent No.2. Respondent No.8 has denied any nexus with M/s. Lucky Trading Company. Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submitted that his client is not an associate of M/s. Lucky Trading Company and that the mere fact that the proprietors of these two business entities are the father and son would not make respondent No.8 an associate of M/s. Lucky Trading Company. It is unnecessary for this Court to labour on this aspect for the reason that respondent No.2 has produced proceedings dated 19-9-2011 wherein it has cancelled order dated 26-3-2011 blacklisting M/s. Lucky Trading Company. While not disputing the existence of this proceeding, the learned Senior Counsel, however, is critical of the reasons for which respondent No.2 has cancelled the said blacklisting order. As the validity or otherwise of order dated 19-9-2011 is not the subject matter of this Writ Petition, it is unnecessary for this Court to delve into the said aspect. At any rate, respondent No.8 was never blacklisted and no material is produced by the petitioners to show that the said respondent is an associate of M/s. Lucky Trading Company. On the analysis as above, I see no merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that
respondent No.8 is not qualified for being considered for award of contract.”
24. Further with respect to the disqualifications of respondents 4, 7 and 8 on various accounts, the learned Single Judge has recorded:
“Even though the learned senior counsel has prepared a Table showing disqualifications of respondent Nos.4, 7 and 8 on various counts, he has fairly submitted the same are very minor in nature and that the petitioners are not interested in pressing the same.”
25. As stated supra, in the original writ petition affidavit’s prayer, there was no prayer seeking disqualification of the respondents 4, 7, and 8 and likewise the black listing of the respondent No.8 etc., also were only part of the affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition. In other words, the learned Single Judge had in fact dealt with the contentions raised in the additional affidavit. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation to reject the contention of the petitioners/appellants that the learned Single Judge had failed to advert to and dealt with the contentions raised in support of the amendment petition and the prayer in the amendment petition. Though it is a fact that there was no formal order on the amendment petition (W.P.M.P. No.20988 of 2013), the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the said application were considered by the learned Single Judge and in fact were dealt with. Even otherwise, in the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the petitioners/appellants have failed to make out a case of malafides on the part of the 2nd respondent in canceling tender notice dated 12.03.2013 and issuing the fresh tender notice dated 15.03.2013. In the circumstances, we do not find any reasons to interfere with the
well considered judgment of the learned Single Judge.
26. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 05.07.2013 passed in W.P.No.10404 of 2013. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. ROHINI
_____________ JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
Date:12.09.2013. Ssv/Gk
HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No.1143 OF 2013
Date: 12.09.2013.
Ssv/Gk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the amendment petition filed by the appellants?
Whether the second tender notification was arbitrary or vitiated by malafides?
Whether the allegations of cartelization and blacklisting proved malafides in the tender process?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
New Horizons Ltd. Vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶15
New Horizons Ltd., Vs. Union of India 1993(1) SCC 478 · Who else cites this
S. Kireetendranath Reddy Vs. A.P. TransportReferred¶15
S. Kireetendranath Reddy Vs. A.P. Transport 1999 (5) ALT 47
M.V.V. Satyanarayana Vs. Engineer-In-ChiefReferred¶15
M.V.V. Satyanarayana Vs. Engineer-In-Chief 2008(1) ALT 715
PBR Select Infra Projects Vs. Commissioner of TendersReferred¶15
PBR Select Infra Projects Vs. Commissioner of Tenders 2013(1) ALT 412
State of Punjab Vs. Ramjilal and othersExplained¶16
State of Punjab Vs. Ramjilal and others 1970 (3) Supreme Court Cases 602
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners/Appellants
A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
Respondents 4, 7 & 8
G. ROHINI
CHALLA KODANDA RAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
