M/S. G Nagu Transport Contractors vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2773 Tel

           THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                SRI M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
                                       AND
     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

                       Writ Appeal No.439 of 2021

JUDGMENT:        (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri M.S.Ramachandra Rao)


      This Writ Appeal is filed challenging order dt.05.07.2021 passed

in Writ Petition No.23741 of 2020 by the learned single Judge.


2.    A tender was floated by 2nd respondent on behalf of the State of

Telangana for transportation of foodgrains for KMS 2020-2021.

3. The appellant as well as 4th respondent participated in the tender

process.

4. The tender was opened on 18.11.2020.

5. The petitioner and 4th respondent participated in the tender

process, and 4th respondent filed an affidavit on 30.11.2020 in Form-C

stating that he or his partners or representatives are not existing paddy,

gunny / Stage-II contractors or Fair Price Shop (F.P.S.) dealers or their

associates.

6. The tender was submitted by the 4th respondent on 16.11.2020.

7. Thereafter, the tender was opened on 18.11.2020, and the 4th

respondent was awarded the contract.

                                                                  HACJ & TVK,J
                                    ::2::                         wa_439_2021

8. It is the contention of appellant that the 4th respondent was

ineligible to participate in the present tender notification since the

Managing partner of the 4th respondent had entered into a Partnership

Agreement with M/s.Sri Laxmi Venkateshwar Transport (for short,

'SLVT'), and so he was ineligible as per Clause 39(i)(d) of the tender

terms.

9. The stand of respondent nos.2 and 3 as also the 4th respondent was

that SLVT was appointed as paddy and gunny contractor for KMS 2020-

2021 on 21.11.2020, and the said Firm entered into a partnership

Agreement with the Civil Supplies Corporation on 21.11.2020.

According to them, as on the date of submission of tender application,

i.e., 16.11.2020, there was no agreement or contract between SLVT and

the 2nd respondent. Therefore, it cannot be contended that the 4th

respondent was not qualified and his bid ought to have been rejected.

10. The learned single Judge in the impugned order agreed with the

contention of respondents and held that as on the date the affidavit was

filed by the 4th respondent in Form - C, i.e., 11.11.2020, there was no

existing contract or agreement between SLVT, of which the 4th

respondent is a partner and the 2nd respondent, nor was he a partner on

the date of finalization of the present tender process, i.e., 18.11.2020,

and so it cannot be said that 4th respondent was disqualified.

11. The learned single Judge also observed that the scope of

interference by Courts while entertaining Writ Petitions filed under HACJ & TVK,J ::3:: wa_439_2021

Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited, and so the Writ

Petition was without any merit.

12. It is the contention of the counsel for appellant that the 2nd

respondent had admitted in the counter-affidavit that SLVT had already

commenced the transportation of paddy on 01.11.2020 even before

submission of the affidavit in Form - C.

13. A reading of the counter-affidavit filed by 2nd respondent shows

that there is no such admission and, in fact, the 2nd respondent had

denied this allegation specifically.

14. Though counsel for appellant contended that without there being

any agreement M/s.SLVT was transporting paddy from 01.11.2020, no

material in support of the said pleading had been placed on record.

15. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this Appeal and it is

accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ

Appeal, shall stand closed.

_______________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, ACJ

_______________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J

Date: 24.09.2021 Ndr