Mehraj v. The Generat Manager, RG. Iiiih" si;gdreni ccillieries company Ltd,, - d;td;tY Coionv,hahasundam

Petition under .Section '15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in :;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 2010312023 in lA No.1/2023 in WP No.7132 t2023 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Between: I\ills. Sreeja lnfra, H no. 6- 3- 82lA, Power House Colony Godavarikhana, Ramagundam, Peddapaliy Diskict ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.6 AND

1. M/s. 41 Royal Servrces, Rep by its Proprietor, [t/r. f\ilohammed Mehraj S/o. Mohammed Sirajuddin, aged 45 years R/o. H No. 6- 2- 262,2nd Floor, MG Complex Vrjaya Talkies Road, Pirdarla Street Hanamkonda - 506 001 ...WRIT PETITIONER

2. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Rep by its Charrman and Managing Director, Near Nilopher Hospital Lakdikapool, Hyderabad

3. The General Manager, RG. lll The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3 Peddapally District

4. The Deputy General Manager (Purchase), The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3 Peddapally District 5. The S. O. to General Manager, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3 Peddapally District

6. Peddapally District, The Senior Section Offrcer, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Centenary Colony, Ramagundam Area 3 Peddapally District ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim order dated 1410312023 granted in lA No.1/2023 in WP No. 7132 of 2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition as devoid of merits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRIKANTH PULIPAKA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l TO 5: SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO.LTD Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI RADHA KRISHNA The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 7L32 OF 2o23 ORDER: e present Writ Petition is hled to declare the action of the r<:spondents, particularly the 2"d respondent in issuing notice dated 25.O2.2023 rejecting petitioner's Application, te<:hnically accepting and considering tlre Crth respondcnt's Application without considering the letter dated O2.O3.2O23 issut:d by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural j ustice .

2. Petit-ioner is stated to be running outsotlrcirlg sen,ices uncler the name of M/s Al Royal Services, duly oblaining licens.e from the Government of Telangana dated

05.01.2O16, va|d lrom 05.01.2O16 to 04.OI.2Ol7 and thereafter, the s.1mc rvas renewed from time to time. Pursuzrnt to the tendcr II) No. 331 177 dated 08.06.2022 issued by the 2"d respondent, inviting Applications for awarding contra<:t [or deploying priver.t,: security personnel (71 Nos.) under unit rate system for RG3 and Adriyala Project Areas for a period of three years, petition( r and other outsources submrtted their respective bids in time and after verification of the same, the 2,,d rcspondent issued the impugned notice rejecting petitioner's 2 NtlK.j \!p ri.il li-lll Application stating that 'Technically not acceptable' and accepting the 6ft respondent outsourcer. It is contended, the 6th respondent does not have any valid licence issued by the Government o[ Telangana and has licence issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Whereas, it is stated, petitioner has vast experience in providing security guards to Mohammed Khan & Sons Jer.t'ellers for the Iast five years and the said jewellers entered into agreement and gave certificate a1so, but Respondents 2 to 5 did not consider Lhe same and illegally accepted the Application ol the 6th respondent.

3. This Court by order dated 14.09.2023, issued notice before admission and directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of petitioner dated 24.O8.2023 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order and communicate the decision to petitioner.

4. Pursuant to receipt of 'notice' on behalf of Respondents I to 6, a counter-affidavit was filed by the General Manager stating that enquiry was floated vide Enquiry No' EMN22OO1O5, dated 24.11.2022 through Tender lD: 371127 inviting Applications for awarding contract for deploying security personnel (127 members and 3 supervisors) for a period of 2 years, under the unit rate system at Manuguru area of the I Y i respondcnt conpan]., in response to which, 44 vendors submitted their bids. As per the tender procedure , drar.r,l r_rf lots was conducted r,n 19.05.2023 amongst 44 vendors for selecting one successful vendor and three standby vendors, r.r,,herein petitioner stood as L-1 and the 6fr respondent as L-2. It is staled that a Cornmittee was constituted to examine / verily the documents subnlitted by petitioner firm along with three other firms which have been kept as standby. The Committee with the help of Vigilanc<: Department conducted discreet enquin. and submittecl a rcF)ortr u,herein it was recommendecl to award contract to the rechnically and commercially-qualified L2 firm i.e. the 6t1, resprrndent as petitioner firm did not submil any experience ccrtill<;atcs related to government organizations falling in thc la-<t five years period to fulhl at least one year experience in bor-h private and government sectors, the firm's offer is techr-rrcallt. not acceptable. In this case, the tenr:lerer does not have the experience of either SCCL or (]ovt. Organizations or PSUs, but he has experience only in private organization u.hic:h itself disentitle him to meet the eligibility criteria as per clause I (c) of the NIT conditions. It is s,tated that experience accrued by petitioner is not in line with ttre NIT eligibility criteria, though they stood as L-1. Petitioner submitted experience certificates along u,rth performance certificates and relevant Labour license in engagtng security man-power services in private organizations only and has not submitted the relevant documents for having experience in SCCL/government organizations / PSUs as per eligibility criteria. Petitioner was technically-disqualihed as per the Technical evaluation report furnished by the Committee on

25.O7 .2023 after verification of Tender documents submitted by him. While submitting the bid for participating in the tender, the petitioner has given an undertaki ng uide Annexure-lll that "lf any information furnished by me/us online towards eligibility in this tender is found to be incorrect at any time, penal action as deemed fit may be taken against me/us for which I/we shall have no claim against SCCL". But the petitioner submitted fake certificate which is in contravention of the conditions stipulated in NIT. Though the other two experience certificates are genuine, Ll is not eligible to award contract in view of submission of one fake experience certihcate, which was declared by M/s Deccan Jewellers Pvt. Ltd uide letter dated

21.12.2022.It is evident lrom the above that petitioner not only deserves disqualification from the existing tender but also penal action as per NIT guidelines In the counter-affrdavit hled on behalf of the 7h 5. respondent, it is stated, in specihc, that the action of the l-\ r. : ;,r,' .'..^ -* . -st'=Fi*i.r'"ii**i*,.,,- \'ill\ I !r _lil lull respondent aulhori[ies in considering / accepting their Application is nc,t illegal as the same was done according to the terms and conditions issued by the respondent authorities in the Tender notifica[ion, in accordance with trligibilit1, and Evaiuation criterizr. It is pertinent to mention here that corltract would be awarCed to person who emerges successfi.rl by qualifying the ter:trnical and commercial criteria and if either of the criteria is rot satisfied by top most person, the next immediate person in the list of successful bidders ri,ould automatically bc considered lor awarding the contract. As such, qualifying in technical and commercial requirements is must and necessary for ;lny firm. It is submitted that the 6e respondent does not have knowleclge reqarding the representation given by petitioner on 24.Oa.2023. It is denied specifically that petitioner,s Application was re.jected as a result of collusion between the 6th respondent and I lre authorities.

6. Flearrl Sri Srikanth Pulipaka, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni C rllieries Company Limited and Sri Radha Krishna, learned c()unsel for the 6m respondent.

7. From a perusal of the facts noted above, this Court is of the opinior-r that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed at "t ,-,-.€ln.-.{.|.*-- 6 \llK,l $P rr rl :0ll thc threshold, lor the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, has, time and again, reinforced the principles of minimal interference of the Constitutional Courts in contractual / tender jurisdiction. B. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. V. State of Karttatakal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

24. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itsetf the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala ltde or intended to favour someone; or $'hether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant las, could have reached'? and (ir) Whether the public interest is affected? lf the ans\vers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226. In the instant case, the private party is trylng to assert its own rights, as such grant of judicial relief is not permissible g. ln TATA Motors Limited a. The Brihan Mum-bai Electric Suppty & Trdnsport Undeitaking (BE,ST)2, th-e Hon'ble Apex Court observed that... '

52. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or ' (2012) 8 scc 2 I6 r 2023 scc online sc 671 - / .,;{ 7 N8K,J ,;P ;lr.- l0l1 patpable is pointed out. The court ordirlarill should not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract." 10 Likewise, in Jagadish Mandal a. State o, Ortssc3, it has been he lcl by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: " When lhe power of judicial review is invoked in mattcrs relating to tendors or arvard of contr?tcts, ccrLain spccial fcaturcs should be bornc in nrind- A contracl is a commcrcial transactioLl, Evaluating tenders and ztuarding contracts arc essentrally commercial [unctioris. Principles oI e,luiry and naturaljusticc sta-y at a distance- If the decisicn relatrng to arv.Lr(l of contract is bona lrde and rs in public interest, courts will noL, rn cx<:rcise of poner of .iuclicial [cvieu,, inLerfere even iI a proccdur-al aberaation or error rn asscssmcnt or prejudice 1(] a tcnderrtr, is made out. Ihc power ofJudicial revic$, rvill not be permrtted to bc invoked to protcct private inlerest at thc cost of public intcrest, or to decldc contractual disputes. Thc tenderer or contractor rvith a grievance can always stcl< damages in a civil court. Attempls by unsuccesslul tenderers u,itll imaginary grievances, rvouoded pride and business rivalry, technical/proccclural violaLion or- somc prejudice to self, and persuarie courts ro interli:r-c b,y exercisir-rg powcr o[ .iudicial revic\.. should lte rcsisted. Such intcrfcrcnces, either inrerim or final, ma_v hold up public works for years, or dcla1. reliel and succour to thousands and millions and may incre.ase the project cost manifold- Therefore, a court bcfore interfering in tender or contraclual mattcrs in exercise of pou,er ol judicial revicu,, should posc to itself rhe follo$ ing questions: to makc mountains out of molehills of (4 Whcther the p.occss adopted or decision made by thc authority is mala fide or intcrrded to favour somconc; OR Whethcr tl)e process adopted or dccision made is so arbitrary ard irrational that Lhc court can say: 'thc decision is such that r-Lo responsible au horitv actlng reasonably and in accordance rvith relevant law could ha'.,e reached"; (il) Whethe. publc intercst is affected. If the ans\\.ers 1re in the ncgative, thcrc should be no interference under Arttcle 226." ' (zooz) ta scc 5r 8 LUl( I \D r_lil l(rl:l 11 In N.G. Projects Limited a. Vinod Kumar Jaina, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: '

16. In Caloxg Transport Agenciesv. Netu J.K. Roadwags lGalaxg Transport Agencies v- Netu J.K. Roadutags, {2o2ll 16 SCC 8O8 ; 202O SCC Online SC 1O351 , a three, Judge Bench again reiterated that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a court in judicial review proceedings. lt was observed as thus: (SCC paras 17,18 & 20) 1Z [n accordance with these judgments and noting that the interpretation of the tendering authority in this case cannot be said to be a perverse one, the Division Bendn lNew JK Roaduays v. U7' of J&K, 2O2O SCC Online J&K 7331 ought not to har/e interfcred lvith it by giving its own interpretation and not giving proper crerience to the word " botlt' apParing in Condition No. 31 of the NIT. For this reason, the Division Bench s conclusion that JK Roadways was wrongly declared to be ineligible, is set aside. i

78. [nsofar as Condition No. 27 of the NIT prescribing work experience o[ at least 5 y-ears of not less than the value of Rs 2 crores is concerned, sufhce it to say that the expert body, being the Tender Opening Committee, consisting of four members, clearl_v found that this eligibility condition had been satisfied by the Appetlant before us- Without therefore going into the assessment o[ the documents that have been supplied to this Court, it is ivell settled that unless arbitrariness or mala fide on the part of tlie tendering authority is alleged, the expert evaluation of a particular tender, particularly when it comes to technical evaluation, is not to be second-guessed by a writ court. Thus, ia Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [Jagdish r (2022) Ontine SC li6 'eC 9 ! OI\,J $P r rl tntl Mandal v. State oJ Orissa, (2OO7) 14 SCC 5l7l , this Court notcd : (SCC pp. 531 32, para 22)

22. Judiciat revierv of administrative action is intenrled to prevent arbilrariness, irratlonality, unreasonaltlcncss, bias and mala llcles. Its purpose is to check $,hether choice or decision is rnade "lawfully" and not to check rr,,hether choice or decision is'sound". When the porver of judicial revierv is invol.:ed ln matters relating to tenders or au'ard of contracts, certilin special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Eualuating tenders and auarding contracts are essentiallg commerciaL functions. Pnnciples of eqtitg and natural jLstice staA at a distctnce. lf the decisron relating to atuard of corfiract is bona ftde attd ts in public interest, courts r.uilL not, in exercise of polaer of Ttdicial reuieu, utterkre eten U o procedural uberration or error in assessn?enf or prejud)ce to o tenderer, ts nt ade out. The poloer of Judicial reuieut utill not be pemtitted. to be inuoked to protect pnuole interest ot Lhe cost of pubL[c intere:;t. or to decide controctuaL dlspules. Thc tenderer or contractor with a grievance can aliva.vs seek damages in a civil court. Atter:rpts by unsuccessful tenderers lvith imaginary grievances, uounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/ procedural violation or some prejudice to seif, and pcrsuacle courts to interfere b1. exercising pou,er of judicial rcvierv, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, ma). trold up public rvorks for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millionsr and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractllal matters in e;<ercise of power of judicial revierv, should pose to itself thc follc,n'ing qLrestions; (rJ Whether the process adopted or decision made bv the authority is mala fide or intended to far.our somcone, Whether lhe process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irratrona that the court can sav:'the decision is such that t.ro i0 NtTK.J sP 7rrl l0l.t responsible authority' actinB reasonably and in accordance with relevant lau, could have reached'; (irl Whether public intert:sl is affected. If the ansuers are in thc negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and tranchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action '

12. In view of thc abovc precedents set by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of thc employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to examine thc terms and conditions of the present day economic activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with cont.racts involving technicai issues as there is a requirement of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. Further, it is held that the Courts before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself i) whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority, is mala hde or intended to favour someone; or u'hether the process adopted or decision made is so artritrary and irrational that the Court can say "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably \lll\ I) rtrt tol and in accordance vrith relevant law could have reached.; (ii) whethcr public interest is affected. If the answer is in the negative, there sl-rould be no interference under ArLiclc 226

13. In the instant case, as per the countcr affidavit liled by Singareni (lollieries Company Limited, petirioner has not fullilled the eligibility criteria, hence, the Application of the 6m respondent, u'ho is next to it, was considered and accepted. In view of thc same, it cannot be said that the acl.ion of Respondcnts .1 and 5 as unlawful and arbitrary- This Court is therefore, not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to bc dismissed.

14. Tl-rt: Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissr:d. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if shall st11d clo; 9d* -,----*- \ ,,TRUE COPYI' "R5.:bllft*fJ"slHtfi sef6r'r oFFlcER t To 1 2 3 4 PSK, LS ?;"qg.,33$r.t'$n*l['TJ"".":J,::*''*%"i*'*'coLLEREs l/ HIGH COURT DATED:2610412024 ORDER WP.No.7132 of 2023 t i I f S1A1 l: 9. I 5$t 5u$* o "$s n Je + * DESF- rf '. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. 0 4 / /a0