THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21881 of 2009 ORDER: Through e-procurement notice published on 09-02-2009, the Superintending Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Kadapa, the 5th respondent herein, invited tenders for the two works in Kadapa District, viz., improvements to road from Mylavaram to Nelanuthala from 0 to 15 K.Ms., and road from Kallutla to Diguva Kalvatala, from 0 to 7 K.Ms. The process involves two stages, namely, technical bid and financial bid. The petitioner and the 6th respondent submitted tenders and they were opened on 03-03-2009. However, the tenders were cancelled by the 2nd respondent. This was followed by another tender notice, dated 21- 08-2009, stipulating the last date as 10-09-2009, for receipt of the tenders. The tender notice was published in the newspapers on 25-08-2009. Once again the petitioner and 6th respondent submitted tenders. Both of them were found to be qualified in the technical bid stage. At the stage of opening of the price bids, the petitioner raised objection as to the eligibility of the 6th respondent. It is stated that a complaint was submitted by the petitioner on 14-09-2009, on the basis of information pertaining to the documents, furnished by the 6th respondent, by downloading the same. According to the petitioner, the 6th respondent did not furnish the information about the on-going works in Chittoor District, and suppression of the same amounts to violation of the tender conditions. On finding that the rates quoted by the 6th respondent were economical, the 4th respondent accepted his tender. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. The petitioner contends that there is a specific clause in the annexure, which is to the effect that, in case there exists any litigation history of any contractor, the same shall be mentioned, and failure to mention the same would lead to rejection of the tender. The 6th respondent filed a counter-affidavit, denying the allegations. It is stated that once the authorities of the department are convinced about his eligibility, the petitioner cannot object to the same. Heard Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, and Sri Harender Prasad, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. It is not in dispute that the 6th respondent is a registered contractor for the category of the works, that were proposed to be undertaken. The tender document requires the tenderer to furnish various kinds of information. One such is about the litigation history. The petitioner states that failure on the part of the 6th respondent to refer to the litigation history would lead to its disqualification. The expression ‘litigation history’ itself is not susceptible to any precise definition. Further, if a contractor has initiated proceedings before a Court or an Arbitrator, to enforce his rights, by itself, that should not lead to any disqualification. If a clause provides for such disqualification, it is liable to be set aside, as being illegal and arbitrary. No one can deprive any citizen, of his rights, in a Court of law. When the revelation of the fact, that a contractor had initiated proceedings in relation to certain works entrusted to him, cannot lead to disqualification, mere failure to mention such facts, in detail, should not be treated as a disqualifying factor. Further, the information that is to be furnished by the contractors, is for the evaluation by the authorities of the department. It is for them to form an opinion as to the credibility, etc., of the tenderer. Once they are satisfied as to the background of a tenderer, the petitioner cannot have any objection to the same. It is not as if the initiation of litigation or failure to do so, by itself, is a qualification or disqualification for submission of a tender. It is not referable to any essential conditions. Once the 6th respondent was found to be qualified in the technical bid stage, the only other factor that becomes significant is, the rates quoted by it. It is not in dispute that the rates quoted by the 6th respondent were found to be economical, and the department has declared it, as a successful tenderer. The petitioner is not able to point out any serious infirmity or illegality in the proceedings, that resulted in the selection of the 6th respondent, as successful tenderer. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-04-2011. KO