IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13948 of 2008 Between: Smt. S. Uma Maheshwari, W/o. Sri S. Venakteswara Rao, R/o. Opp. LIG 1/45, A.P.H.B. Colony, Opp: Zillaparishad, Srikakulam 532 001. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Secretary 2 Convenor & Principal, A.P. Social Welfare Residential School, Kollivalasa, Srikakulam District. 3 Sri V.V.V.S.N. Raju, A.P. Social Welfare Residential Junior College Kollivalasa, Srikakulam District. 4 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Joint Collector, -Cum-Chairman, District Purchase Committee, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the action of the respondents in issuing revised tender notiﬁcation No. 88/Catering/Canve dated 25-6-2008 as illegal and void; and consequently direct the respondents to process the tenders by awarding contract to the Petitioner in terms of Tender Notification published in Eenadu Daily News Papers dated 31-5-2008 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : O R D E R: Smt.S.Uma Maheshwari is the petitioner in this Writ Petition. The tender notiﬁcation was published in Eenadu daily newspaper dated 31.5.2008 inviting tenders for providing catering services together with Kirana, Vegetables and Milk in the schools of A.P.S.Welfare Residential Society situated at Kollivalasa, Duppalavalasa, Etcherla, Kanchilli, nandigam, Pathapatnam, Bhamini, Vangara and Mandasa at Rs.13.98; Srikakulam and Palakonda, K.G.B.V.Kanchili at Rs.13.72 and Tamarapalli at Rs.14.53. The tender conditions speciﬁed that tenderer should have experience in catering for not less than three years and he should be income tax assesses for the last three years. The petitioner submitted tender form together with EMD of Rs.1,00,000/-. The tenders were opened on 11.6.2008. She was found to be the lowest bidder in respect of four schools situated at Srikakulam, Duppalavalasa, Palakonda and Pathapatnam. Proceedings were issued on 18.6.2008 requiring the tenderers to attend with necessary document on 23.6.2008. According to the petitioner, calling tenderers to attend on 23.6.2008 with necessary documents is contrary to the conditions of the tender since all the documents were required to be submitted along with the tender itself. It is stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition that Sri.V.V.S.N.Raju Principal and Convenor of A.P.S.W.R. Junior College, Kollivalasa is hostile to her and she is instrumental in making her tender not accepted. Para 7 of the writ affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “ 7. It is submitted in my capacity as the President of Gayatri Women Association, Srikakulam participated in the tenders of awarding stitching of Uniforms of A.P.S.W.R.E.I. Society’s schools. When a representation was made for the enhancement of stitching for the year 2007-08. Sri V.V.S.N.Raju, Principal and Convenor fo A.P.S.W.R. Junior college, Kollivalasa vide letter dated 11.2.2008 communicated that the rates are prescribed as per the decision of the Housing Keeping Committee and that the contract works have been awarded calling quotations locally and conduct the stitching by the persons who quoted the least. Subsequently it is come to the notice that in respect of schools at Tamarapalli, Kollivalasa and Kanchili the persons who quoted highest rates for stitching works have been awarded the contract at the behest of Sri V.V.S.N.Raju. Immediately I addressed a letter on 5.5.2008 to the District Collector, Srikakulam to take necessary action in the matter. The very same Sri.V.V.V.S.N. Raju is involved in the ﬁnalization of the tenders for catering works in terms of the notiﬁcation which was published on 31.5.2008. Since I made a complaint against him, he has chosen to evolve the method for depriving me the catering contract. Thus, the procedure adopted by the Principal and Convenor is biased and unjust.” The District Purchase Committee cancelled the tender issued on 31.5.2008 and called for fresh tenders by issuing re-notiﬁcation dated 25.6.2008. The action of the respondents in issuing revised tender notiﬁcation dated 25.6.2008 is under challenge in this writ petition. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of the respondents. Counter aﬃdavit has been ﬁled on behalf of the respondents. Dr.M.Sudhakar Reddy has sworn to the counter aﬃdavit. Issuance of tender dated 31.5.2008 is not disputed and so also of revised tender notification dated 25.6.2008. It is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner was the lowest bidder in respect of three schools viz., Dupplavalasa, Palakonda and Pathapatnam. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioner failed to appear before the DPC along with necessary documents and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to question the action of the respondents in canceling the tender notiﬁcation dated 31.5.2008 and issuing revised tender dated 25.6.2008. It is also stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the revised tender came to be issued keeping in view the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent Society that one person cannot be entrusted with catering works in respect of more than one school. Paras 13 to 15 of the counter aﬃdavit need to be noted and they are as follows: “ 13. In reply to para 8, it is respectfully submitted that the DPC Chairman is the competent authority either to approve or to cancel the tenders. So the Chairman of DPC has taken a decision to cancel the tenders keeping in view of the instructions of the Secretary APSWREI Society, Hyderabad. In the light of the said developments, a fresh tender notiﬁcation was issued with guidelines. The Joint Collector has instructed the Principal Convenor to supply tender forms at free of cost to the tenderers who have participated in response to the previous notiﬁcation. The petitioner has also taken the tender forms at free of cost as noted in the notiﬁcation but not submitted the same. It is also submitted that the rates approved by 1st tender notiﬁcation were the less in comparison with the rates quoted earlier by the petitioner as follows: S.No. Name of the School Rates quoted in Earlier tender Notification Rates quoted in Re-tender Notification Difference 1. Srikakulam 0.90 0.44 0.46 2. Pathapatnam 1024 0.72 0.52 3. Duppalavalasa 0.98 0.50 0.48 4. Palakonda 1.24 0.89 0.35 5. Vangara 1.74 1.73 0.01 6. Bhamini 0.62 0.29 0.33 7. Kanchili 1.70 0.60 1.10 8. Tamarapalli 1.72 1.73 0.01 9. Mandasa 1.65 0.40 1.25 10. Kollivalasa 0.89 0.50 0.39 11. Nandiga 1.75 1.73 0.02 12. Etcherla 1.06 0.52 0.54 14. Further, it is submitted that the entire tender process went in smooth way. When every thing is transparent, there is no malaﬁed intention lies with Sri.V.V.V.S.N.Raju, Principal and Convenor, Kollivalasa in issuing a re-tender notiﬁcation and it is further submitted while issuing the said re-tender notiﬁcation he followed the due instructions of the authorities concerned from time to time. Hence, the petitioner’s argument is baseless. 15. In reply to para 9, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner statement is not correct. Based on the Xerox copies submitted by the petitioner, it is quite obvious that she had experience for the last three years only. It is also submitted that she has taken the fresh tender forms and she is at her liberty to participate in open tenders along with others. It is meaningless to claim the least quotation as the petitioner even not participated in open tenders in accordance with the guidelines issued in re-tender notification.” The petitioner ﬁled reply aﬃdavit. It is stated in the reply aﬃdavit that the contract for the year 2008 was in favour of Gayatri Women Association, but not to the petitioner individually. The particulars of rate quoted by the petitioner has been stated in para 9 of the reply affidavit. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents having issued tender notiﬁcation dated 31.5.2008 and received tenders are not justiﬁed in issuing re-tender notiﬁcation dated 25.6.2008. He would further submit that the proceedings issued by 4th respondent directing the tenderers to be present on 23.6.2008 with necessary documents are contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender notiﬁcation dated 31.5.2008. A further submission has been made that the petitioner being the lowest bidder in respect of three schools, contract must have been awarded to him instead of re-notiﬁcation in respect of same schools. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare contends that revised tender notiﬁcation came to be issued keeping in view the guidelines issued by the 1st respondent-Society. He would also contend that the petitioner having failed to appear before the District Purchase Committee pursuant to the proceedings dated 18.5.2008 cannot be permitted to question the re-notiﬁcation dated 25.6.2008. The respondents in the counter aﬃdavit stated the circumstances under which re-tender notiﬁcation necessitated. In order to improve the quality of service, 1st respondent decided not to entrust more than one school to one tenderer. That is a policy decision taken by 1st respondent-Society. Revised tender came to be issued to be in tune with the policy decision. The petitioner having failed to appear before the 4th respondent on 23.6.2008 with necessary documents cannot be permitted to challenge the revised tender notification dated 25.6.2008. The principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government and the Government bodies to prevent arbitrariness and favouritism under the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution. There are inherent limitations in the exercise of that power because although the Government is the guardian of ﬁnances of the State and is expected to protect the ﬁnancial interest of the State, the right to refuse the lowest or any tender is always available to the Government. Public authorities, which invite tenders, should not be under any liability under the traditional rules of oﬀer and acceptances. But those who tender are entitled that their tenders should be fairly considered according to the terms of the invitation to tender. The respondents decided to go for revised tender notiﬁcation after taking a policy decision that one person cannot be awarded catering in more than one institution. Learned Government Pleader placed on record the entire ﬁle relating to the tender notiﬁcation dated 31.5.2008. The ﬁle contains the reasons for calling for the meeting of the tenderers on 23.6.2008. The observation made by the DPC members reads as under: Observations of the DPC members: 1. Most of the tenderers have not submitted required documents like experience certiﬁcates. Hence, healthy competition was not prevailed, it appears one firm may grab another. 2. It is not practically feasible to handle catering contract for more than one school. The contractor is sole responsible to supply the food in time and he has to personally supervise the mess, otherwise it is not possible to supply hygienic food and any untoward incidents may happen. 3. The Zonal Oﬃce for Zone – I has informed that it is not desirable to give catering contract to one contractor, more than one school. 4. It is also learnt that the DPC headed by Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam has not given more than one to any catering tenderer. The Secretary, APSWREI society, Hyderabad has informed the same to the Zonal Officer, Zone-I. The DPC opined to observe the following aspects for calling the tenders in this subject matter. 1. To maintain quality in deliverance of catering items. 2. To maintain healthy competition, no person should be entitled to obtain the contract for more than one institution. 3. to prove the ability and capability to comply with all the tender conditions without any deviation. 4. The Contractor should be sound financially. 5. To check of the back history of the contractor. 6. To check up the experience and IT returns if any ﬁled by the contractor. Keeping in view the above conditions, it is quite reasonable to cancel the tenders conducted previously, to enable to select a service motto contractor for deliverance qualitative food items to the students by issuing a fresh notification, mentioning the above conditions. It is submitted that the Chairman, DPC and the Joint Collector is having every right to conﬁrm or cancel the tenders, as was already published in the notification in question. Permission may kindly be accorded to issue fresh notification.” It is transparent from the ﬁle that suﬃcient reasons have been indicated for canceling the tender notiﬁcation dated 31.5.2008. I do not see any valid reason to interfere with the action of the respondents in issuing the revised tender notification dated 25.6.2008. Accordingly, this writ petition is devoid of merits and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. 29th September, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.13948 OF 2008 29T H SEPTEMBER 2008.