THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.21165 of 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Energy for respondent No.1, and Ms.A.Deepthi, the learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Power Generation Corporation Limited, for respondent Nos.2 and
3. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned tender conditions under eligibility criteria vide NIT No.e- 17/CE/Civil/Thermal/TSGENCO/2020-21 dated 03.11.2020 namely 1) C. Financial Standing.i 2) C. Financial Standing.iii
3) A.Registration & 4) B.Similar work experience, as irrational, onerous, apart from being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 of constitution of India, and consequently set aside the aforesaid impugned conditions of the tender notification with a direction to the respondents to formulate/amend aforesaid impugned bid conditions in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.94, I&CAD(PW- COD) Department dated 01.07.2013 and Circular No.12-02- 1-CTE-6 dated 17.12.2002 of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit proper in the interest of justice."
The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the third respondent issued the impugned tender notification dated 03.11.2020, to which the petitioner raised objections, vide representation dated 13.11.2020, duly highlighting the irrational/onerous conditions included in the eligibility criteria mentioned in the said notification, in the 'Pre Bid Meeting' held on 16.11.2020 at the office of the third respondent. The grievance of 2 the petitioner is that without responding to the said representation, the respondents are proceeding with the tender process and aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.
A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.1 stating that TSGENCO is competent to prepare eligibility criteria and to change the tender procedures as per the site requirement in order to suit the commissioning schedule of the respective projects. The eligibility criteria is prepared and specified in the tender notice in order to invite competent and major contractors who are having good experience in construction of multi-storied buildings so as to complete the township in a short period of two years. It is further stated that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines are not applicable to TSGENCO and they are applicable only to the Central Government departments and its undertakings. TSGENCO is guided by its Purchase Manual. It is further averred that the relief claimed in the writ petition can be granted only against respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the respondent No.1 is only a formal party to the writ petition. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition against respondent No.1.
Another counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of second and third respondents stating that pursuant to the queries/clarifications received from the prospective bidders including the petitioner in the Pre-Bid meeting held on 16.11.2020, the tender dates were extended. While making a note of the tender schedule, it is further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not attended in the Pre-Bid meeting held on 16.11.2020, but has raised certain queries vide letter dated 3 13.11.2020, to which necessary replies were communicated to the petitioner through e-mail on 25.11.2020. It is further stated that taking the magnitude of the financial and physical nature of work to be executed within the stipulated time, the Corporation has finalized the eligibility criteria. The contention of the petitioner that the eligibility criteria specified in the tender notification runs contrary to G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2013 is incorrect for the reason that the said GO by itself does not indicate the extent of its applicability to the Public Sector Companies incorporated and established by the State Government. Further, the said G.O. was not even adopted by the TSGENCO. The eligibility criteria specified in the tender conditions is mainly to complete the execution and to suit the commissioning schedule of the projects. Further, the guidelines issued by CVC are also not applicable to TSGENCO. It is settled legal principle that the guidelines do not confer any legally enforceable right. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
Rebutting the contents of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that finalization of the tenders should be in accordance with the policy guidelines of the State as the respondent Corporation is a State owned enterprise and it is obligatory on the part of the respondent Corporation to follow the same. As the petitioner is assailing the inclusion of arbitrary/irrational conditions and against the policy guidelines of the Government and not the policy matter of the Government, the judgments relied by the respondent Corporation to the effect that the Courts shall not transgress into the field of policy decision, are not applicable to the present case. 4
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the eligibility criteria fixed by the respondents is tailor made to benefit a limited class of persons/Companies. The circulars issued by CVC advice that the prequalification criteria should neither be very stringent nor very lax to restrict/facilitate the entry of bidders. G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2013, requires the financial turnover of 50% and CVC guidelines require 30% of the estimated cost of the contract per year. The value of the present contract is Rs.450 crores, as such, the eligibility criteria imposed in the impugned tender notification that the bidder shall have turnover of Rs.750 crores in any one year during last three financial years, is onerous. Another eligibility criteria imposed in the tender conditions that the bidder shall have 'net worth' of Rs.150 crores during the last audited financial years is not at all referred to in either of the State GOs or CVC Circulars. Further more, there is no purpose in imposing such a condition in view of the another tender condition imposed requiring production of 'solvency' in the form of Liquid Assets/Credit facilities/solvency certificate from any Indian Nationalised/Scheduled Bank of value not less than Rs.54 crores. Learned counsel further contends that in similar way the other conditions imposed in the tender notification, which are impugned in the present writ petition, are against the G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2013 and also the CVC Circulars. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned tender conditions. In order to substantiate his pleadings, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, 5 Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others1, Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies and another2 and the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Dhingra Construction Co. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors3.
Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel, has contended that the G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2013, relied on by the petitioner has not been adopted by the TSGENCO are therefore the same cannot be made applicable to respondent Nos.2 and 3. So also the CVC Circulars/guidelines relied by the petitioner are also not binding on respondent Nos.2 and 3. Even assuming for a moment that the same are binding on respondent Nos.2 and 3 (without conceding for the same), the same are only guidelines and not conclusive in nature. It is the practice of the TSGENCO to formulate the tender specifications suitable to the respective projects in the interest of the Corporation and public at large. TSGENCO has fixed the eligibility criteria keeping in view the scope and nature of work. Learned Standing Counsel has further contended that it is well settled principle of law that the terms of tender prescribing eligibility criteria are not subject to Judicial Review. In support of his case, the learned Standing Counsel has relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TATA Cellular vs. Union of India4 and this Court in Sabhari Electricals & KCP Engineers Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Telangana5.
1 (2000) 5 SCC 287 2 (2009) 6 SCC 171 3 2005 (79) DRJ 383 (DB) 4 1994 (6) SCC 651 5 2020 (1) ALD 111 6 The writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that the tender conditions stipulated in the Tender Notification vide Proc. No.CE/C/Thermal/C/TCD-II/BTPS/F.Township/D.No.104/ 2019- 20, Dt.03.11.2020. NIT No.e-17/CE/Civil/Thermal/TSGENCO/ 2020-21, Dt.03.11.2020, are not only onerous, but the same are tailor made to suit a few persons or Firms in tender contracts. The conditions are contrary to G.O.Ms.No.94, Irrigation and CAD (PW- cod) Department, dated 01.07.2003, and the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. Therefore, the conditions stipulated in the notification itself have to be set aside. Though the counsel for the petitioner has painstakingly taken this court to the various clauses in the tender notification and argued at length to show that the same are contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, and the guidelines by the Central Vigilance Commission and relied on various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to buttress his contention that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can step in and set aside the conditions stipulated in the tender notification, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said conditions are arbitrary, onerous, tailor made to suit a few contractors or eliminate contractors like the petitioner, who are otherwise eligible but for imposition of these conditions. The main thrust of the arguments is that the fixation of the minimum turn over, insisting for previous experience of having executed multi storied buildings consisting of stilt+7 floors or above of value of woks of more than Rs.450 crores under single agreement during the last five financial years i.e., 2015-16 to 2019-20 in State/Central Govt. (or) State/Central PSU etc., are 7 contrary to the Executive Orders issued by the Government. The respondents have to follow the various criterion stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, and the respondents cannot stipulate the conditions so as to suit a few persons or Firms.
Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has argued that the Corporation is an independent Authority and that G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, is not applicable to them, that till date number of tenders have been floated by the respondents and they have not followed either the G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003 or the guidelines issued by the CVC. The petitioner has made vague allegations and not stated as to how the conditions are onerous and for whose purpose the conditions are tailor made. Without making the person or Firm, for whom the conditions are tailor made, as a party respondent, as alleged by the petitioner, the writ petition is not maintainable. The allegations made by the petitioner are totally baseless, unfounded, vague, and made to prejudice this Court. The Department had to stipulate these conditions in the tender document as the Project that is sought to be grounded is a prestigious one and that there was an urgent need to complete this project within the stipulated period. Only with a view to invite bidders from best and reputed contractors who have the necessary financial capacity, the ability to execute projects of this size and who have the requisite experience in executing projects of similar nature, the conditions have been stipulated and not to target some contractor or favour any person or Firm.
Heard both sides. Perused the record.
8After going through the writ affidavit, the documents filed by the petitioner, counter of the official respondents, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the writ petition has to fail on the sole ground that the writ petition is totally devoid, bereft, silent with regard to the capacity, experience, financial capacity, etc. of the petitioner to participate in the tender process or undertake the tender works among others. Petitioner has not even filed a scrap of paper to show as to what experience it has in executing the works that are similar to the project that is subject of the present tender process, its financial capacity, what was its previous turnover, etc. or any other document to show that it has the necessary work experience, financial capacity to execute the project. The writ affidavit is also silent with regard to any of these details. The writ affidavit is bereft of details which could had enabled the Court to see if the petitioner had the necessary work experience, financial capacity or that it had executed projects of similar nature earlier. If the petitioner had filed these documents or atleast given details in the writ affidavit that it had executed projects of similar nature, its financial capacity, what projects it had executed, this Court would had examined the same, but for the reasons best known to the petitioner the details and documents are missing. In the absence of any of the above mentioned documents and details, the petitioner cannot complain that the conditions in the tender document are onerous and tailor made to suit some persons or Firms.
Even the allegations that the tender conditions are imposed to benefit a particular person or Firm are also vague, without mentioning as to who those persons or firms are or making them 9 party respondents, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. When the petitioner is making allegations, it should be very specific, and supported by some documentary proof. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing counsel, the tenders are still at the preliminary stage and there is absolutely no way of knowing how many persons/Firms are going to participate and who those persons are. With regard to the allegations made by the petitioner that the respondents are not following G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, and the guidelines issued by the CVC and that the tender conditions are in violation of the said criterion laid down by the Government or CVC, when it is specifically asserted by the respondents in the counter that the Corporation is an independent authority and they have not adopted the said G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, issued by the Government, till date; that they have issued earlier tender notifications without following the criterion laid down in the above G.O.; The petitioner has not filed a single document to show that the respondents have previously followed the G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, issued by the State Government or the guidelines issued by the CVC and that they cannot turn around to say that they have not adopted the said G.O. for the present tender.
Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited many judgments to buttress his case, the same are not applicable to the facts of this particular case. It is no doubt true that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the power and jurisdiction to set aside the tender conditions, if the same are capricious, onerous, tailor made to suit some persons or Firms or to eliminate some Firms deliberately, but in the present 10 case, the writ petitioner has not filed any documents are details with regard to its previous experience, financial capacity, etc. It is pertinent to extract the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.6, where the challenge was made to the pre- qualification criterion in the tender document. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on its earlier decision in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India7, emphasised the need to find a right balance between administrative discretion to decide the matters on the one hand, and the need to remedy any unfairness on the other, and observed:
"94. (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. ...
(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi- administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."
(emphasis in original) Similarly, in Assn. of Registration Plates vs. Union of India8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the 6 2012 (8) SCC 216 7 (1994) 6 SCC 651 8 (2005) 1 SCC 679 11 allegations made by the petitioners therein; which are similar to the ones made by the petitioner herein, has held as under:
"38. In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract of the nature of ensuring supply of high security registration plates, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities. Unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, tender conditions are unassailable. On intensive examination of tender conditions, we do not find that they violate the equality clause under Article 14 or encroach on fundamental rights of the class of intending tenderers under Article 19 of the Constitution. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the Union and State authorities and the justification shown for the terms of the impugned tender conditions, we do not find that the clauses requiring experience in the field of supplying registration plates in foreign countries and the quantum of business turnover are intended only to keep indigenous manufacturers out of the field. It is explained that on the date of formulation of scheme in Rule 50 and issuance of guidelines thereunder by the Central Government, there were not many indigenous manufacturers in India with technical and financial capability to undertake the job of supply of such high dimension, on a long-term basis and in a manner to ensure safety and security which is the prime object to be achieved by the introduction of new sophisticated registration plates.
39. The notice inviting tender is open to response by all and even if one single manufacturer is ultimately selected for a region or State, it cannot be said that the State has created a monopoly of business in favour of a private party. Rule 50 permits the RTOs concerned themselves to implement the policy or to get it implemented through a selected approved manufacturer.
40. Selecting one manufacturer through a process of open competition is not creation of any monopoly, as contended, in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution read with clause (6) of the said article. As is sought to be pointed out, the implementation involves large network of operations of highly sophisticated materials. The manufacturer has to have embossing stations within the premises of the RTO. He has to maintain the data of each plate which he would be getting from his main unit. It has to be cross- checked by the RTO data. There has to be a server in the RTO's office which is linked with all RTOs in each State and thereon linked to the whole nation. Maintenance of the record by one and supervision over its activity would be simpler for the State if there is one manufacturer instead of multi-manufacturers as suppliers. The actual operation of the scheme through the RTOs in their premises would get complicated and confused if multi-manufacturers are involved. That would also seriously impair the high security concept in affixation of new plates on the vehicles. If there is a single manufacturer he can be forced to go and serve rural areas with thin 12 vehicular population and less volume of business. Multi- manufacturers might concentrate only on urban areas with higher vehicular population.
43. Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the Government from arbitrarily choosing a contractor at its will and pleasure. It has to act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract. At the same time, no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. All that he can claim is that in competing for the contract, he should not be unfairly treated and discriminated, to the detriment of public interest. Undisputedly, the legal position which has been firmly established from various decisions of this Court, cited at the Bar (supra) is that government contracts are highly valuable assets and the court should be prepared to enforce standards of fairness on the Government in its dealings with tenderers and contractors.
44. The grievance that the terms of notice inviting tenders in the present case virtually create a monopoly in favour of parties having foreign collaborations, is without substance. Selection of a competent contractor for assigning job of supply of a sophisticated article through an open-tender procedure, is not an act of creating monopoly, as is sought to be suggested on behalf of the petitioners. What has been argued is that the terms of the notices inviting tenders deliberately exclude domestic manufacturers and new entrepreneurs in the field. In the absence of any indication from the record that the terms and conditions were tailor-made to promote parties with foreign collaborations and to exclude indigenous manufacturers, judicial interference is uncalled for."
After observing so, this Court dismissed all the writ petitions directly filed in this Court and transferred to this Court from the High Courts.
In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and others9, the following conclusion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is relevant:
"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona 9 (2007) 14 SCC 517 13 fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;
OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached";
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action."
In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Case (supra), the Hon'ble has stated that from the above decisions, the following principles emerge:
(a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities;
(b) fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of 14 contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very limited;
(c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is not warranted;
(d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and
(e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government.
and held as under:
"...the Court would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities. In view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the same was contrary to public interest and beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. We are satisfied that to have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road carrying passengers, the 2nd respondent thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and thought it fit that only those manufacturers who satisfy the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender. As noted in various decisions, the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the Courts would interfere. The Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical."
Admittedly, in the present case, the respondents have issued the tender notification for construction of a residential township at Bhadradri Thermal Power Station, Manuguru Bhadradri Kothagudem District on Engineering Procurement Constructions (EPC) Contract basis, which included Soil Investigation, Engineering, Design and Construction of Integrated Township with infrastructural works consisting of Independent and Multistoried 15 residential quarters, Hospital building, School building, Club house, Guest House, Indoor Auditorium, Stores Complex, Security Gate with Security office Building, Storage shed etc., including site leveling and grading, roads & drains, compound wall around the township etc., on EPC basis. The eligibility criterion stipulated in the tender document does not in any manner be called as arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious, malafide, biased or tailor made to suit few persons or Firms. When large projects are sought to be implemented, that too within a time bound period, the authorities necessarily have to stipulate conditions to see that the participating tenderers are having the required experience to execute the projects of this nature, and the financial capacity to procure men, machinery and material to execute the project within the required time, etc. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, in the absence of any details or documents regarding the work experience, financial capacity, turnover of the petitioner Firm, the writ petition fails among other reasons as set out above.
The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 07.01.2021 sur