T Narasimha Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3126 AP

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

            WRIT PETITION No.17303 of 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner has been working as a Diet Contractor. He

submitted his bid in the Tender Notification No.986/B.4/2021-

2022, dated 19.06.2021, issued by the 4th respondent, for

supply of diet to the Government Hospital, Kakinada. The tender

had two parts viz., technical bid and financial bid. The

technical bid was opened on 14.07.2021. However, the financial

bid of the petitioner was not opened while the financial bids of

some of the other participants were opened. Aggrieved by this

action, the petitioner had now approached this Court by way of

W.P.No.14233 of 2021. This writ petition was closed on the

ground that the tender had been cancelled and a fresh tender

process was being initiated.

2. The petitioner had again bid for the fresh tender,

which was issued under a Notification, dated 17.07.2021. In

this tender process, the technical bids of all the participants in

the tender process, was opened. However, the petitioner came

to know that his technical bid was not being processed and the

tender was being taken to the stage of financial bid. Aggrieved

by the non consideration of his bid, the petitioner has

approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

3. Sri Kochiri Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the

petitioner assails the entire tender process on various grounds.

He contends that the tender could not have been issued by the

4th respondent, who is the Superintendent of the Government

General Hospital as G.O.Ms.No.325 Health, Medical and Family

Welfare (M1) Department, dated 01.11.2011, which gives the

guidelines for the tendering process for the award of Diet

contracts stipulates that it is the District Diet Management

Committee, which will be responsible for calling the tenders. He

further contends that that the experience certificate and other

certificates produced by the petitioner would be sufficient to give

the petitioner more than 70 marks, which is the bench mark for

considering the financial bids of the persons, who qualify for the

technical bid. He submits that non allotment of a minimum of

70 marks to the petitioner is highly arbitrary and high handed.

4. The learned Government Pleader has now produced

the record of the evaluation committee. The learned Government

Pleader submits that the technical bid is considered by way of a

two stage process. In the first stage, the bids of the tenderers

are verified to ascertain whether all the technical bid conditions

set out in the tender document (internal page 6) are complied

with. After verification, only the bids of those tenderers, who

have complied with all the technical bid conditions, are taken

up for evaluation of the technical bid where marks are awarded

as per the criteria set out for evaluation of technical bids set out

at internal page 6 of the tender document.

5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the

bid of the petitioner was rejected at the stage of considering the

conditions itself. This was because the petitioner had not

furnished the GST Registration Certificate as well as the EPF

and ESI Registration Certificates which are necessary Technical

Bid conditions. He submits that on account of the non

submission of these three certificates, the technical bid of the

petitioner was rejected and the bid of the petitioner did not go to

the second stage of the evaluation at all.

6. Sri Kochiri Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that EPF and ESI Registration Certificates

were not filed. However, he states across the bar that GST

Registration Certificate was filed. He further contends that none

of these conditions were there in G.O.Ms.No.325 and as such,

these conditions cannot be placed as a bar for considering his

bid.

7. The first objection of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the tender could not have been issued by the 4 th

respondent has to be rejected in view of the judgment of the

Division Bench in W.A.No.86 of 2021 dated 29.07.2021, wherein

a tender notification issued by the Superintendent of

Government Hospital, in a similar situation, was upheld.

8. A Diet Committee appears to have met on

14.07.2021 for considering the bids under the earlier tender

process and after considering the fact that all the three qualified

bidders had offered the same price had terminated the tender

proceedings. Thereafter, the Joint Collector had asked for

tenders to be called again by issuance of a fresh notification.

9. The second contention of Sri Kochiri Rajasekhar,

learned counsel for the petitioner that the requirement of filing

ESI and EPF Certificates cannot be insisted upon as there was

no such condition in G.O.Ms.No.325 also, cannot be accepted.

The petitioner having participated in the tender process cannot

turn around and contend that certain conditions are arbitrary

or high handed. When the petitioner has participated after full

knowledge of the tender conditions and without demur, the

petitioner cannot now turn around and contend that the tender

conditions should not be taken into account.

10. The tender conditions clearly require the bidders to

submit EPF and ESI certificates along with the certificate of

Registration for GST. There is some controversy as to whether

the GST certificate has been filed or not. However, there is no

controversy that the ESI and EPF certificates have not been

filed.

11. In the circumstances, the rejection of the bid of the

petitioner on account of non compliance of the tender conditions

cannot be faulted.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

23.08.2021 RJS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION No.17303 of 2021

23-08-2021

RJS