WP/27626/2005 of M/s. Murthy and Company, Engineers and Contractors, Vs The Government of A.P., RANDB Department, on 30 December 2005

Conclusion

ORDER:

The petitioner is an existing operator of the lifts in Burugula Rama Krishna RaoBuildings, Tank Bund, where several Government offices are located. The contractwas awarded to the petitioner after inviting tenders. The petitioner challenges theaction of the respondents in issuing tender notice, dated 15-12-2005, for award ofthe same work on several grounds. It is alleged that the Tender notice waspublished, just two days before the last date, with a view to help the selectedpersons, or institutions and that several conditions were incorporated in such away,as would disentitle the petitioner and several others.

The writ petition came up for admission on 27-12-2005. It has been adjourned twice,with a view to enable the learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings toobtain instructions. Learned Government Pleader submits that the tender notice,dated 15-12-2005, was displayed in the notice board of the Building complex as wellas the office of the Engineer Sub-Division on 15-12-2005 itself. It is stated that it waspublished in the newspaper on 26-12-2005 and adequate publicity was given.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forRoads and Buildings.

Government issued G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01-07-2003, prescribing the procedure, forinviting tenders and awarding of contracts, for different categories of Governmentworks. It is not in dispute that the procedure prescribed therein applies to the presentcontract also. Clause 8(iv) of the said G.O., mandates that a time of atleast 14 daysshall be allotted to the tenderers from the date of publication of the tender notice. Inthe instant case, the tender notice was published on 26-12-2005 and the last date forsubmission of tenders was 28-12-2005. Therefore, there exists only two days oftime. If the respondents were of the view that displaying of the tender notice on 15-12-2005 in the relevant place was adequate publicity by itself, there was nonecessity for them to publish it in the newspapers. The very fact that they chosen topublish in the newspapers, discloses that they felt the necessity of giving widepublicity to tenderers. That being the case, the respondents ought to have publishedthe notice in such a way as to give atleast 14 days time to the intending tenderers.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had urged several grounds, touchingon the validity of the conditions incorporated in the tender notice, this court is notinclined to deal with the same, since it is always open to the agency to stipulate theconditions.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the respondents shall issuefresh tender notice, in such away, as to give atleast 14 days time to the intendingtenderers. The tenders received, in response to the impugned notice, shall also beconsidered without requiring them to file fresh tenders or leaving it open to them tosubmit tenders without depositing E.M.D. afresh. No order as to costs.

Note:

Furnish C.C. by tomorrow

(B/o)

30-12-2005

______________

Prv