Telangana High Court
Syed Abdul Wahab vs The State Of Telengana And 4 Others on 26 February, 2021
Bench: A.Abhishek Reddy
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
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.
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
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
