M/s Vaishnavi Enterprises v. The State of Telangana

TIIE HONOURABLE SMT'

PE ON

WRTT PETITI ON

COMM

JUSTICE T. MADTIAVT

DEVI

No.3⁰⁵⁶¹OF

2024

NO

.30986^OF

) 024

ON o RDER

AND

h both these writ petitions, the petitioners have responded to the

short e-tender notice

dt'16'10'2024 issued

by^the 2nd respondent'

by

submitting their technical as well as financial bids' The 5th respondent also has participated in^the same' The technical bids were opened on 26.10.2p24 and thereafter' the financial bids were to^be opened on

28.10.2024'However' ort 28'10'2024' the official respondents did not

open the financial bids of the petitioners' but have declared that only the

5th respondent is the successful tenderer anij also initiated negotiations with^the 5'h respondent' According to the petitioners' the petitioner in

W.P.No.30561 of 2O24 is L-l bidder and the petitioner in

W.P.No.30986 of 2024is L-2 bidder and without considering their^bids

which are lower than the bid of^{the 5'h} respondent' the offrcial

respondents are trying to award the contract in favour of the^5fr

2

W.P.Nos-30561 ,L 30986 of 2024 respondent. challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed.

2. Leamt:d counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.305ril ,tf 2024, L_l bidder, has quoted only 60oh and rhe petitioner in W.p.No.309g6 of 2024, L_2 bidder, has quoted 69%, whereas the lith rgspoldent has quoted, gg%oand therefore, is L_4 bidder and the person w,ho quoted the lowest should have been considered for negotiations for the lender,

3. This Court, vide order dt.30.10.2024 in W.p.No.3O 561 of 2024 and order dt.06.11.2024 in W.p.No.309g6 of 2024, had directed the respondents to maintain status quo as on the date of the order, i.e., not to finalize the tender:;.

4. The 4ft respondent has hled a counter affidavit stating that amongst four bidders, three were found to have been disqualified and only the 5th respondent was found to bq qualified. It is submitted that after opening the technical bids, it was noticed that the petitioner in W.P.No.3056l of 2024 had not submitted GSTN along with the application and the petitioner in W.p.No.309 g6 of 2024was disqualified Wanaparthy and also having

1. for having 6-,a. cases against it in \

W.P.Nos 3056l & 30985 of2024

3

connections with rice millers' Since the bidders were found to^be disqualified in technical bid itseli their furancial bids were not opened

and the work was allofted to the 5h respondent' whose technical bid^was

valid.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the^5h respondent relied upon the

averments made in the counter affidavit^and submitted that only^when

the bidders are qualified' technical bids or financial bids would^be opened and in this case' the technical bids ofthe petitioners were not in

order and therefore, they were disqualifred and their hnancial bids^were

not opened and the 5h respondent was found to be qualified and hence'

the contract should be hnalised in its favour' He refened to the tender

conditions and the documents to^be fumished under Clause 5 of^the

tender agreement', under which it^was prescribed that copies of^GSTN and PAN should be uploaded and hard copy shall be fumished' He

placed reliance upon the

judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the^case

of Project Director RUIDP and others Vs' Ms' Ramky

Infrastructrirre Ltd., and anotherl, wherein it relied upon^the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in^the case of Goldyne Technoserve \

\ ' o.r. Special Appeal (writ)^No E04/2018 dt 29 03 2019

7

W.P.Nos.3056l & 30986 of 2024

4

I\ \

Ltd. Vs. State of Madhya pradesh2 holding that the ISC) certificate which was rrot submitred along with the technical bid despite the fact that the certif-ri:ate was available and held that the decision of the procuring errtit) in rej ecting the bid was not perverse. It had further relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sorath Builders Vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Ltd. and anotherr, wherein the tender notice provided for online submission of price bid within seven days of date of well-advertised tender notice and pre_ qualification documents were required to be received physically one day before price bidding closed and the Hon'ble Supreme court held that the said requirenrenr is not unreasonable or arbitrary and the bid of the respondent bt:fore the Hon'ble Supreme court was lowest but since he submitted the prr:-qualification documents with delay of tfuee days, it was held that the terms and conditions of the tender are required to be adhered to st'ictly. The Hon'ble supreme court has observed that the disqualified bidder cannot be considered only from the point of view of saving public money as that would not justi8 going thrqugh the tender process again and where the bidder was negligent and was not sincere in submitting thr: documents within the time schedule, the documents ' 1zo t t; s scc to:I

lzool;^{r r} scc s

8

W.P.Nos.3056l & 30986 of2024 received after the time schedule czrnnot be considered as the terms and

conditions of the tender are to be strictly adhered to' Therefore' according to the leamed counsel for the 5h respondent' even though the

petitioner in W.P.No.3056l of 2024 now claims to have obtained^the GSTN subsequently and claims to be ready to submit the same before entering into the agreement, the same cannot be accepted in view of^the

above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which have^been followed by the Rajasthan High Court in^the above cited case'

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand' submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.30561 of 2024 has obtained the^GST certificate on29.ll.2024and is ready to submit^the same at^the time of

entering into the agreement and since the petitioner was the lowest

bidder,sheshouldbeconsidered.Itisfurthersubmittedthatinthecase of similar contract in Narayanpet, the successful bidder therein also did

not subniit the GSTN at the time of submitting the tender form and^has

obtained the same subsequently and the respondents have permitted him

to do so. Therefore, he prayed that similar treatment should be given to

the petitioner herein as well-

/

I

5

W.P.Nos.3056 t & 30986 of 2024 7 . In respect of the petitioner in W.p.No. 309g6 of 2024. the leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were no 6-4 proceedings pending aga.insr. the petitioner either in Wanaparthy or in Kollapur as alleged by the respondents and therefore, the contentions of the respondents are incorrect

8. Leame,d Standing Counsel for the 4rh respondent, however, has filed a copy of the Register maintained in respect of 6_,{ proceedings to submit that one Vijay Kumar was representing the petitioner in W.P.No.30986 of 2024 and the proceedings were pending against him in Wanaparthy.

9. The leamerl counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the said Vijay Kr_rmar was only a representative and if the proceedings are pending against him, it does not meaR that the proceedings are pending against the petitioner in w.p.No.30 gg6 0f 2024. He submitted that the Proprietor of the petitioner in w.p.No.309g6 of 2024 is Ms. Katta Shanthi and not Mr. Vrjay Kumar and no proceedings are pending against the said proprietor.

10. \ ttre learrred counsel for the 5ft respondent, however, file. certain documents along with the counter affrdavit in support of his contentions

6

i l \

10

w.P.Nos.3056 t & 30986 ot 2024

7

that the Petlttoner in W.P.No.30985 of

11

W.P.Nos.3056l & 30986 of 2024 though is L-l bidder, cannot be considered since she has not satisfied the tender cc,nditions.

12- ln reslrecr of the petitioner in w.p.No.3o9g6 of 2024, this court finds that 6-r\ proceedings are not pending against the petitioner therein or its Proprietor. The copies of the alteged proceedings against the petitioner filed by the respsondents are in respect of one Viiay Kumar who is allel;ed to be the representative of the petitioner. In the documents hled by the respondents, the presence of Vijay Kumar is not mentioned as the representative of the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be presumed that the said cases are against the petitioner in w'P'No'30986 of 2024. Therefore, the disqualification of the said petitioner is ,ot sustainabre. The 4s respondent in w.p.No 309g6 of 2024 is therefore directed to consider the financial bid of the petitioner in W.P.No.301)86 of 2024 and it being lower than the 5ft respondent, i.e., L-2, the 4th respondent shall negotiate with the petitioner in W.P.No.30986, of 2024 and finalise the contrait accordingly.

13. In the result, (1)W.P.No.3056t of 2024 is accordingly dismissed.

8

(2)W.P.No.30986 of 2024 is accordingly allowed

12

14. Pending miscellaneous petitions' if^any'

Petitions shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY//

10.Two CD CoPies

BSR

BS

g

w.P.Nos.3056l & )0986 of2024 in both these Writ

SD/.P. CH' NAGABHUSHAMBA

ASSISTAN

R STRAR

sEC TION OFFICER

9

(3)There shall be no order as to costs in both the Writ Petitions' To,

.r. The principar Secretary, civil suppfies Dept., secretariat Building' Hyderabad'

'ifr jiiii,,lm-*s,i'ft.i:fixj'#'a*ir'::::

.IlH*t5:k":,"J1f; :#i[*'ff "::ls,gltt,:is3:civirsuppriescorporaton

,

U"n,rrli,llt"ll f,,:?n;;;8,:Eil-i o?'r8"n, "''u

s u p p*es co rpo ratio n^Li m ited'

'$;,i,,;*i,u=iJur,***'*:'li5[:{Js,ug?3,'#"r"'""-' 6'^One CC to SRI A'VISHNU

VARDHAN REDDY'

Advocate [OPUCI

T^One CC to SRI D'V'KRISHNA

KUMAR' Advocate IOPUCI

8.^One CC to SRI T'P'ACHARYA'

13

HIGH COURT

DATED: 08t01t2025

COMMON ORDER

CC TODAY

klE ST4rG o+ e

O 0 9 Jr,|{ l!?5 c) WP.No.3OSG1 of 2024

AND

WP.No.3098G of 2024 DISMISSING THE W.p.No.30561 of 2024 & ALLOWING THE W.p.No.3O986 ot 2024,

WTHOUT COSTS

4

Crc'r"

W

-.-j

14