THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
W.P.No.3593 OF 2021
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare for respondent No.1, and the learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Medical Infrastructure Development Corporation for respondent Nos.2 to 4. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.4 in not giving clarity while issuing the tender notification for dismantling the existing old 50 bedded CHC hospital building, all quarters, all ancillary buildings and disposal of debris from the site at Gajwel in Siddipet District, on e-procurement platform vide Tender ID No.217841 and Tender Notice No.07/EE/TSMSIDC/SDPT/ 2020-21 on 12.01.2021 and not maintaining transparency.
In a nutshell, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has participated in the tender process by paying Rs.11,000/- towards the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). However, before filing the bid, the petitioner contacted the respondent No.4 several times for furnishing further details like solvage value, dismantling costs and lifting of debris price, etc. in respect of the contract, as there was no clarity with regard to those details in the tender notification, but his efforts went in vain. Subsequently, it was found by the petitioner that even though the estimated amount of the 2 department was only Rs.5,16,300/-, the bid of the respondent No.5 was for Rs.10,31,409/- and the same was accepted. Therefore, the petitioner alleges that the respondent No.4 while calling the tender notification did not maintain transparency in order to help the respondent No.5, who is none other than his yesmen, to win the tender. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the tender notification is bereft of crucial details like solvage value, dismantling costs, lifting of debris price, etc. Even the said details were not furnished to the petitioner in spite of approaching the respondent No.4, for number of times. Hence, there is a clear collusion between the respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 and therefore prayed to allow the writ petition.
Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, on written instructions, has stated the tenders were called on 12.01.2021 with start date for submission of tender on 15.01.2021 at 5.00 p.m.; last date on 19.01.2021 at 5.00 p.m.; the commercial bid was opened on 19.01.2021 at 5.45 p.m.; and commercial stage was finished on 21.01.2021. But, as a technical issue was raised as the display rank was opted to lowest by e-procurement platform server by default, the Department has contacted helpline centre for rectification of display rank from lowest to highest. A letter was also addressed to the Joint Secretary, IT E & C Department, by mail for rectification of display rank from lowest to highest. 3 The confirmation from IT E & C department for rectification of display rank was done online on 30.01.2021 and subsequently the price bid was opened on 30.01.2021. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that out of three bids, one person was disqualified and the petitioner and the 5th respondent were successful in the technical bid. On opening of the price bids, it was found that the petitioner has quoted Rs.5.21 lakhs whereas the respondent No.5 has quoted Rs.10 lakhs. On 01.02.2021, the work order was issued and as on date almost 60% of the demolition work has been completed. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that construction of the hospital has to be completed within a period of six months and the demolition itself is a time bound programme and if any interim order is granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner, it will not only have effect of increase in the cost of construction of the hospital building but also put the patients to hardship. Learned Standing Counsel has further stated that the petitioner has not submitted any representation to the official respondents at any point of time and has straight away filed this writ petition. Thus, the learned Standing Counsel has prayed this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
In Silppi Constructions Contractors V. Union of India and another1, at para 20, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise of restraint 1 (2019) SCC Online SC 1133 4 and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity." In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment, taking into consideration the specific assertions made by the learned Standing Counsel and after going through the material on record, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, insofar as tenders are concerned, is unwarranted, more so when it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that almost 60% of the demolition has already been completed and there cannot be any piecemeal demolition of the structure. The prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be granted, at this stage, and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the subject tender.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 26-02-2021 sur