IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1052 of 2008 Between: M/s. Praveen Enterprises (Electrical and Civil Contractors) Registered in A.P.C.P.D.C.L. & A.P. Transco A-Grade Licence No. A32421-617 Yacharam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its Propreitor B. Praveen Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 Additional Commissioner (Electrical) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 Superintending Engineer (Electricial) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting the tender speciﬁcation NO. NIT No. 02.S.E (Elec)/GHMC/2007-08 package No. 10 & 20 dt. 20-12-2007 to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allot the same to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GIRI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent : MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY FOR R MR.N.NAGARAJA KAPOOR FOR R R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 FOR R The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by M/s.Praveen Enterprises (Electrical and Civil Contractors) represented by its Proprietor B.Praveen Reddy with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting the tender speciﬁcation No.NIT.No.02.S.E (Elec)/GHMC/2007-08, package No.10 & 20 dated 20.12.2007 to it as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation-1st respondent issued tender notice on 16.10.2007 inviting tenders for maintenance of conventional Modern, Central Medical Junctional (High Mast, Semi High Mast and Mini High Mast) Street Lights & Lighting in parks in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad (erstwhile MCH limits), as is where basis for a period of one year initially which will be extended for further period of 3 years at the same rates depending on performance of the contractor and on mutual consent. Subsequently, tenders came to be cancelled and revised tender notiﬁcation came to be issued on 20.12.2007. The petitioner submitted a tender for package 10 & 20. The respondents have opened the technical bid of the petitioner. But the ﬁnancial bid of the petitioner has been kept aside on the ground that the petitioner is not having eligibility criteria as per G.O.Ms.NO.94 dated 1.7.2003 of I & CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is a Class-I contractor and eligible to participate in the tenders. According to the petitioner, the bid quoted by him is far less then the bid quoted by the 4th respondent whose tender has been finalized. Writ petition came to be admitted on 7.2.2008 and on the same day, an interim order of status quo came to be granted in WPMP No.1256 of 2008. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 ﬁled counter and moved WVMP No.843 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the status quo order granted in WPMP No.1256 of 2008. They also filed additional counter aﬃdavit. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that in the tender notice dated 5.11.2007, Unit-wise rates were applied, which was in fact abolished in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003, without taking into account the Standard Specified Rates (SSR) issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. As per tender notice dated 5.11.2007, date of issue of tender schedule was from 6.11.2007 to 12.11.2007 up to 5.00 P.M and last date of receipt of tender schedule was 19.11.2007 upto 3.00 P.M. Date of opening the tender was ﬁxed as 19.11.2007 at 4.00 P.M. While the matter stood thus, some contractors made representation dated 15.11.2007 to the respondent corporation complaining about certain discrepancies in the tender called for on 5.11.2007 i.e., with regard to eligibility criteria and that tenders called for on unit rate basis was already abolished by the Government and non-observance of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 and that estimates are not prepared based on S.S.R issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and that no details regarding number of packages (area- wise) and number of points in each package and so on. Consequently, the tender issued on 5.11.2007 came to be cancelled and fresh tender notiﬁcation dated 20.12.2007 came to be issued. The eligibility criteria was ﬁxed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94, I & CAD Department, dated 1.7.2003. The tender notice dated 20.12.2007 was postponed by publishing an Amendment by way of notice in Lr.No.2769/SE/Elect/GHMC/DB/2007- 2008, dated 28.12.2007, due to administrative reasons and the revised rates of tender process was published as under: Original Revised Download End Date 29.12.2007 11.01.2007 @ 3.00 P.M Last Date & Time for receipt of Bids 29.12.2007 11.01.2008 @ 3.30 P.M Price Bid opening 03.01.2008 16.1.2008 @ 2.00 P.M According to tender notice dated 20.12.2007, the eligibility criterion was ﬁxed as Electrical Class-I in terms of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 1.7.2003 and introducing SSR rates in the place of Unit rates. On opening the tender of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner did not have the eligibility criteria in terms of G.O.Ms.NO.94, dated 1.7.2003 and hence the same was not considered for evaluation. When the vacate stay petition came up for admission, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the leaned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and also learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the very cancellation of the tender of the petitioner is mala ﬁde and the sole object of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in issuing the fresh tender is to accommodate the 4th respondent. He further submits that the petitioner has made an application to the 1st respondent Corporation for grant of Class-I contract certiﬁcate on 4.12.2007 and that application came to be rejected on 12.12.2007. He also submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 having returned the application for registration as Class-I Contractor cannot reject the tender on the ground of non enclosure of certificate as proof of registration of contractor. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner did not possess Class-I Contract registration certiﬁcate as on the date of opening technical bid and therefore, the question of opening his ﬁnancial bid does not arise. Learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent adopted the contentions of the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3. While replying to the contentions advanced by the leaned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured registration as Class-I Contractor as provided under GOMS.No.94 dated 1.7.2003 and there cannot be impediment for the respondents 1 to 3 to open the financial bid of the petitioner and allot the works. The relief sought for in this writ petition is seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to allot the work in respect of packages 10 & 20. It is the claim of the petitioner that he is the lowest bidder for the above packages and therefore, he is entitled to be awarded the works under the packages 10 & 20. Indisputably, the petitioner has no registration certiﬁcate of Class-I Contractor as on the date of his submitting tenders. If he has secured subsequent to submitting of the tender, the said certiﬁcate is of no avail to him. Therefore, issuing direction to respondents 1 to 3 to allot packages 10 & 20 in the tender notiﬁcation to the petitioner does not arise. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The interim order granted in WPMP No.1256 of 2008 stands vacated. __________ 29-07-2008 Note: Issue CC by one week. (B.O)rkk