Dismissed

Shaik Shabbeer v. the State of Ts

Telangana HC7 Aug 2018WP/21356/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the non-award of a catering contract to the petitioner as illegal. The court held that the rejection was due to the non-submission of the required EMD of Rs. 50,000/- along with the tender, as per notification conditions, and found no merit in the challenge.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petitions holding that the rejection was justified as the petitioner failed to submit the required EMD with the fresh tender, despite challenges regarding previous deposit.

Shaik Shabbeer Vs the State of Ts — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON Nos 21252 And 21356 of 2018 COMMON ORDER:

¶2

Since the grievance in both the writ petitions is one and the same, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by way of common order.

¶3

These writ petitions are filed with the following prayer:

¶4

“…. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the illegal action of the respondents herein, particularly 2^nd respondent to 5^th respondents herein, not awarding the catering contract service in favour of petitioner, inspite of petitioner was stood as L1, in respect of catering service, under control of 5^th respondent hostel, and the same as been illegal, arbitrary and unjust, and also misuse of official powers, and its violation of Article 19, 21 of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents herein, forthwith award the catering contract service, in-respect of 5^th respondent hostel, whoever stood as L-1, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶5

Counter affidavit is filed by the 5^th respondent in both

¶6

the writ petitions stating that along with tender form, the petitioner has not submitted EMD of Rs.50,000/- in both the writ petitions as specified in the conditions of the tender notification. But learned counsel for the petitioner basing on the averments in the writ affidavits submits that as EMD for Rs.50,000/- filed with tender of previous year was lying with the 5^th respondent-institution and the Principal of the 5^th respondent-institution accepted the tender forms of the petitioner, the petitioner has not enclosed the EMDs again.

¶7

¶8

But the tender-committee has not considered the said aspect. The conditions in the tender notification specifies interested persons are required to submit tender form along with EMD for Rs.50,000/-. The only ground on which the tenders of the petitioner was not accepted is non-enclosing of EMDs for Rs.50,000/as specified in the conditions of tender notification. A reading of the tender conditions goes to show that EMD amount of Rs.50,000/- should be paid in favour of the Principal, MJPTBCWR School concerned along with tender schedule . Admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted the EMDs for whatever the reason it may be. Basing on the conditions specified in the tender notification, the tenders of the petitioner was rejected. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

¶9

Having regard to the above, I do not see any merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to the disposal of these petitions, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶10

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

¶11

07-08-2018 Nvl

¶12

¶13

Shaik Shabbeer v. the State of Ts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Shabbeer v. the State of Ts

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

Bollineni Ramanaiah Memorial Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Nellore Vs the Union of India, New Delhi and 2 Others

S.L.S Power Corporation Limited Vs Andhra Bank, Head Office

E. Raji Reddy Vs State of Ts

Pullela Ramulu Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Shabbeer Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd. Zaheeruddin Vs State of Telangana