IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal No. 587 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13/06/2008 in Writ Petition No. 7676 of 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M/s. Doshion Ltd., Regd. Office : Plot Nos. 24,25 & 26, Phase-II, G.I.D.C. Vatva, Ahmedabad-382 445. ... APPELLANT AND 1. Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Transmission Circle, S.R.Nagar, Hyd.-500 038. Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. Hyderabad Metropalitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Transmission Circle, S.R.Nagar, Hyd.-500 038. Rep. by its Chief General Manager ( Engg.) 3. Mantech Constructions , a Partnership firm, Rep. by its Partner, 3-342/1, 30/A, Lakshmi Nagar, Near VSK High School, Kukatpally, Hyd.-72. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D. PRAKASH REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MR.B.VENKATADRI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: MS.M.VENKATESWARI Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.D. HANUMANTHA RAO The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 13.6.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.7676 of 2008, this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 2. Relevant facts necessary for deciding the appeal, in a nutshell, are as under: On 14.2.2008, respondent No.2 issued a tender notice inviting bids on BOOT (Build, Own, Operate and Transfer) basis for about 149 connections in O & M Division No.VIII, Patancheru for remote meter reading through GSM or RFID technology and acquiring readings into a hand held auto reader, without using any wire or cable and which can be transferred into a computer/server from the interested firms on or before 3 p.m. on 14.3.2008. In terms of the tender notice, two bids were required to be submitted by bidders – one for technical evaluation and another, the financial bid in Cover A and Cover B respectively. The mandatory conditions to be fulfilled and instructions to be followed by the prospective bidders were spelt out in the bid document. In short, according to the tender notice, the prospective bidders had to complete the entire project within the first four months from the date of award of the contract and thereafter, the successful bidder had to operate and maintain the equipments for 60 months (five years). 3. In pursuance of the said notice, appellant – petitioner, respondent No.3 and another firm M/s. ICSA (India) Limited submitted their bids. Subsequently, on 27.3.2008, respondent Nos.1 and 2 opened the bid documents and found that all the three firms were technically qualified to enable their financial bids to be considered. Subsequently, the respondent Board evaluated the financial bids of the bidders and found the offer of respondent No.3 in a sum of Rs.2,01,60,000/- as the lowest, of M/s. ICSA (India) Limited in a sum of Rs.2,58,96,600/- as the next lowest. Since the appellant – petitioner submitted its bid on the graded scale and not on uniform rate, the respondent Board treated its bid as “non-responsive”. Consequently, the respondent Board accepted the lowest bid submitted by respondent No.3 and issued Letter of Intent (LoI) in its favour for completing the contracted work. 4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent Board in treating its bid document as “non-responsive” and accepting the bid of respondent No.3, M/s.Doshion Limited filed a petition and the learned Single Judge dismissed the same on 13.6.2008 upholding the decision of the Board. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the original petitioner has filed the present appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the bid document enclosed along with the case record. We have also perused the original record submitted by the respondent Board in the Court. 7. The main grievance, which has been ventilated in this appeal, is that while evaluating the bid documents, the respondent Board wrongly treated the appellant’s bid as “non-responsive” on the ground that the financial bid submitted by it was not in equal monthly instalments. According to the appellant, there was no such condition in the tender document and it required the bidders to give their offers in 60 instalments. 8. It is undisputed that the firm which fulfilled the conditions of offer imposed by the respondent Board was to succeed in getting the contract. In terms of the tender notice, the bidders were required to submit two separate bids – one for technical evaluation and another, the financial bid. It is also undisputed that the appellant, respondent No.3 and the third firm M/s.ICSA (India) Limited were technically qualified to enable their financial bids to be considered. The appellant had submitted its financial bid for operation and maintenance of 149 remote meter readers year-wise i.e. for the first year – Rs.4,50,000/- per month, for the second year – Rs.3,50,000/- per month, for the third year – Rs.3,00,000/- per month, for the fourth year – Rs.2,50,000/- per month and for the fifth year – Rs.2,41,667/- per month whereas respondent No.3 and M/s. ICSA (India) Limited submitted their financial bids at Rs.3,36,000/- per month and Rs.4,31,610-50 ps. per month respectively. 9. Note No.1 incorporated in Section VI of the Financial Bid (Part 2) enclosed with the bid document issued by the respondent Board says that the successful bidder shall be selected from among the eligible bidders offering monthly cost for operation and maintenance of auto meter readers and bills disbursement including recovery towards capital cost and maintenance per month for 149 connections. On a reading of the above note, it is clear that the bidder had to submit his bid offering monthly cost for operation and maintenance, including recovery towards capital cost and maintenance per month, for 149 auto meter readers. It is, however, true that there was no specific mention in the bid document that the bidders were required to give their financial bids for operation and maintenance on month-wise basis uniformly. 10. Ms.M. Venkateswari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board has submitted that it is the general practice in trade and commerce circles that the terms and conditions of the financial bids are to be understood as an offer to be made on a uniform basis. She has further submitted that the appellant had quoted different amounts for the five years for recovery of the amount spent by it for installation, operation and maintenance, which was contrary to the tender and conditions which was not as per standard practice followed by the Board. According to her, the rate to be quoted by the bidders in their financial bid was “on per month and not on per year basis”. The respondent Board had therefore treated the bid of the appellant as “non- responsive”. 11. It is a general rule that in order to have an agreement, the acceptance of the proposal must be absolute, unqualified and without any condition. It should always be accepted in the prescribed manner, if prescribed. In the instant case, the respondent Board had invited the bidders to submit their financial bids on monthly basis. In order to give clarifications on any aspect of the matter, the Board had conducted pre-bid meetings and, in fact, the appellant participated in one such meeting held on 07.3.2008 in the chambers of Director (Technical) of the respondent Board. In the said meeting, it did not seek any clarification with regard to the terms specified in Section VI of the bid document and submitted its financial bid on an annual basis at that too on a graded scale basis. The respondent Board, therefore, cannot be faulted with for treating the bid of the appellant as “non-responsive”. 12. For the afore-stated reasons and for the other reasons incorporated by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge that the offer of the appellant of its financial bid on an annual basis and that too on a graded scale for all the five years was not in conformity with the requirement of the bid document itself. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August , 2008. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {KSRANI}