High Court · 2025

PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ' Order or Direction, more particularly one ln the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents no 3and4 a In not finalizing and awarding contract to the petitioner as suc cessful L-1 tenderer in pursuance of Short-e_Tender Notice Ref. Lr No. MSpiA2t3gl/p&c Tenderst24/2i,7ated 16t1O12024, for Sector lll Kollapur, and awarding said contract in back door method in favour of 5th respondent who is L_4 unsuccessful tenderer as illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, colorful exercise of powers conferreci on them and against the principles of natural justice a vto lating Art. 14 ,'lg and 21 Constitution of tndia, consequenfly direct the respondents no.3 and 4 to award said contract in favour of the petitioner as Successful L-j tenderer without insisting GSTN at prese nt part from IA NO :1OF 2024 petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petition, the High cou( may be preased to stay of all further proceedings in respect of Short_e_Tender Notice Ref. Lr. No. Msp/A2l391/p&c Tendersr24r2' dated 16r10t2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, pendinr; disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: cp FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI T.'.ACHAR'A, SC FOR TSCSCL Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI D.V.KRISHNA KUMAR WRITP ETITION NO: 309860F 2024 Betwee n #ffiiffi:*lflffii,ff frtsp,l6irq{i,ir#i"+:$ffi:tff rrr ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary' Civil Supplies Dept'' Secretariat Building, HYderabad.

2. The Telansana State Civil Supplies-Qorggrqtign t-illte{*-f91- Uy-]ts-}{ice - chairmen TManaging Director, o/o T.S. Civil supplies Bhavan,_ Jro Floor, H. i[o. o:eossll /d P'anjagutta Road, Somaiiguda, Hyderabad-500082' - 3.TheAddl.collector,andEoED,Telanganas,tatecivilSuppliescorporation Limited, Nagarkumool, Nagarkurnool-Dist-509209'

4.TheDistrictManager,TelanganaS'tate.CivilsuppliesCorporationLimited, Nagarkumool, Nagarkumool-Dist-509209'

5. M/s Sri Vaishnavi Transport' (partnership firm) Rep' by its Managing Paqtgr' - Sri R.Leevan Reddy S/o Vijaya Ram .Reddy' Aoed about 46 years' ucc' eusiness, R/o ptoi rrlo. sl,'Sal sadan A'prtm-ents,Mythrinagar Phase-ll, Madeenaguda, HYderabad-500049. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents no. 3and4 in not opening and finalizing financial tender forms of the petitioner and other tendererson2S'lo.2o24inpursuanceofShort-e-TenderNoticeRef.Lr.No. MSP/A2I391/P&G Tenders/24t25 dated 16-10'2024, for sector lll, Kollapur' without notice and assigning any reasons and awarding said contract in back door method in favour of 5th respondent who is L-4 unsuccessful tenderer, the wayofconductingtenderprocessitselfaSillegal,arbitrary,unwarranted,colorful exerciseofpowersconferredonthemandagainsttheprinciplesofnatural justice apart from violating Art. 14,19 and 21 Constitution of lndia, consequently 3 and 4 to award said contract in favour of the direct the resPondents no. petitioner as lbwest Tenderer IA NO:10F 2024 petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High cou( may be preased to stay of a' further proceedings in respect of short-e-Tender Notice Ref Lr. No. MSp/A2l3g1ip&G Tenderst24r2' dated 16-10-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent for sector Ko'apur, pending disposar of the main writ petition. 'r' Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A.VISHNU VARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI T.'.ACHAR'A, SC FOR TSCSCL Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI D.V.KRISHNA KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER TIIE HONOURABLE SMT' JUSTICE T. MADTIAVT DEVI PE ON No.30561 OF 2024 AND WRTT PETITION NO.30986 OF ) 024 COMM ON oRDER

28.10.2024'However' 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 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

1. for having 6-,a. cases against it in \ Wanaparthy and also having 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. Learned counsel appearing for the 5h respondent relied upon the 5. 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 4 W.P.Nos.3056l & 30986 of 2024 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 I 5 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 6 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 i l w.P.Nos.3056 t & 30986 ot 2024 7 in W.P.No.30985 of 2024 is involved in 6-A that the Petlttoner proceedings and therefore, it is disqualified from participating in the bids.

11. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record' this Court finds that one of the requirements of the tender conditions is that GSTIN and PAN documents should be enclosed along with the tender application. Admittedly' the petitioner in W'P'No'30561 of 2024 who is the lowest bidder, has not submitted the GSTN along with the tender form and therefore, she has been declared as disqualified after the technical bid was opened' As held by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Project Director RUIDP and others Vs' Ms' Ramky Infrastructure Ltd" and another (l supra), the tender conditions have to be adhered to strictly' Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.3056t of 2024 is an individual and therefore' there was no requirementtoobtainGSTNandthereafter'onlyafterfindingher financial bid to be the lowest' she has applied for GST number and is ready to file the same, this Court is of the opinion that there is no exemption in respect of individuals from obtaining GST number if he is intending to do business' The petitioner in W'P'No'30561 of 2024' I 8 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. (2)W.P.No.30986 of 2024 is accordingly allowed w.P.Nos.3056l & )0986 of2024 9 (3)There shall be no order as to costs in both the Writ Petitions'

14. Pending miscellaneous petitions' if any' in both these Writ Petitions shall stand closed' SD/.P. CH' NAGAB HUSHAMBA STRAR ASSISTAN R //TRUE COPY// sECTION OFFICER 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 s u p p*es co rpo ratio n Li m ited' , U"n,rrli,llt"ll f,,:?n;;;8,:Eil-i o?'r8"n, "''u '$;,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' SC FORTSCSCL [OPUCI , SUPPLIES' Hish court for the State of relangana t*;; Iyfir::;f%t" 10.Two CD CoPies g BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED: 08t01t2025 CC TODAY COMMON ORDER WP.No.3OSG1 of 2024 AND WP.No.3098G of 2024 klE ST4r G o+ e O 0 9 Jr,|{ l!?5 c) -.-j DISMISSING THE W.p.No.30561 of 2024 & ALLOWING THE W.p.No.3O986 ot 2024, WTHOUT COSTS 4 Crc'r" W