Telangana High Court
M/S Readers Stores Pvt Ltd vs Zenith Metaplast P Limited on 28 November, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.772 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. N.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants. We have also heard Mr. L.Aravind Reddy,
learned counsel for respondent No.1/writ petitioner;
Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for respondents No.2, 4 and 5; and Mr. A.Yadava
Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated
16.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.1
of 2022 in W.P.No.40368 of 2022 filed by respondent
No.1/writ petitioner.
3. The related writ petition was filed by respondent No.1
assailing its disqualification from the tender proceedings
dated 03.10.2022. I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed to stay all
further proceedings.
4. We may mention that two notices inviting tenders
(NIT) were issued by Telangana State Education & Welfare
Infrastructure Development Corporation (briefly, 'the
Corporation' hereinafter) on 03.10.2022 for e-procurement
of furniture items for teaching staff as well as for
laboratories and libraries. Respondent No.1 submitted its
bid online on 12.10.2022. By the aforesaid NITs it was
mentioned that the tenders would be of two bid system; the
technical bids would be evaluated first and thereafter
financial bids of the technically qualified bidders would be
evaluated. On 21.10.2022 respondent No.1 received
automated message that its tender was rejected on the
ground of deviation. This led to filing of the related writ
petition.
5. At this stage we may mention that respondent No.1
itself had filed an interlocutory application, being I.A.No.2
of 2022, seeking impleadment of appellants as respondents
in the writ proceedings as it transpired that after
disqualification of respondent No.1, appellants were
declared as lowest tenderers. Without taking a decision on
I.A.No.2 of 2022, learned Single Judge opined that
disqualifying respondent No.1 from the tender appeared to
be arbitrary and without any rationale basis. Accordingly,
order dated 16.11.2022 was passed directing that all
further proceedings pursuant to the two NITs both dated
03.10.2022 shall remain stayed.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits
that respondent No.1 was disqualified from NIT dated
22.09.2022 by the same Corporation on the ground of
having conflict of interest. This is under challenge by
respondent No.1 in W.P.No.40402 of 2022. In I.A.No.1 of
2022 in W.P.No.40402 of 2022 filed by respondent No.1 for
stay, learned Single Judge declined to grant any stay and
dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2022. According to learned Senior
Counsel, such decision of learned Single Judge would have
a definite bearing on the technical eligibility of respondent
No.1 in the present tender process. Had I.A.No.2 of 2022 in
W.P.No.40368 of 2022 been allowed and appellants been
brought on record, this aspect could have been brought to
the notice of the learned Single Judge by the appellants.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 submits that it is only an interim order passed by the
learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge had examined
the reasons given by the Corporation for disqualifying
respondent No.1, whereafter a clear finding was rendered
by the learned Single Judge to the effect that there being a
conflict of interest cannot be a ground for disqualification
in subsequent tender. He, therefore, submits that there is
no error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single
Judge to maintain an intra-court appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the Corporation, on the other
hand, justified disqualification of respondent No.1 and also
relies upon the order of the learned Single Judge dated
16.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.40402 of
2022.
9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
due consideration, we are of the view that it would be just
and proper if I.A.No.2 of 2022 is considered by the learned
Single Judge before hearing I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
W.P.No.40368 of 2022 afresh. Respondent No.1 having
filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 to bring the lowest tenderers on
record ought to have taken steps for hearing I.A.No.2 of
2022 first before proceeding with I.A.No.1 of 2022.
10. Without expressing any opinion on merit as well as
on the stay prayer of respondent No.1, we set aside the
order dated 16.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
W.P.No.40368 of 2022 and remand the matter back to the
learned Single Judge to hear I.A.No.2 of 2022 and I.A.No.1
of 2022 in W.P.No.40368 of 2022 together and thereafter
pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
11. Writ appeal is accordingly allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
______________________________________
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J
28.11.2022
vs
