Telangana High Court
WP/29112/2009 of P. Srinivas, Vs BSNL (Government of India Enterprises) on 31 December 2009
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.29112 of 2009 ORDER: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the respondent herein, issued a tender notice, on 24.10.2008, for the purpose of hiring vehicles, for its Adilabad Telecom District. The petitioner and certain others submitted their
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWrit Petition No.29112 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the respondent herein, issued atender notice, on 24.10.2008, for the purpose of hiring vehicles, for itsAdilabad Telecom District. The petitioner and certain others submittedtheir tenders. On the ground that the rates quoted by various tenderersare abnormal, the bids were cancelled. Second tender notice wasissued, on 04.03.2009. This time, the tenders were cancelled, on theground that the main cover was not properly sealed. For the third time,tender notice was issued, on 25.09.2009. Same exercise i.e.,cancellation of tender, ensued, on a different ground, and for the fourthtime, the tender notice was issued, on 10.12.2009. The petitionerchallenges the action of the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned StandingCounsel for the respondent.
It is no doubt true that, issuance of tender notice, as many asfour times, reflects that, all is not well in the entire process. Issuance ofrepeated notices, would not only involve wastage of public money, butalso would give rise to several speculations. At the same time, if therespondent notices that, the serious defects, or irregularities have creptin, it cannot be compelled to proceed with the tenders. It is settledprinciple of law that, even where the rates, quoted in response to atender notice, are remunerative, the concerned agency has the libertyto give up the process, if it finds that acceptance of tender would not bein its interest. The petitioner has not alleged any mala fides againstthe respondent.
Across the Bar, it is stated that only two tenders were received,in response to the third notice and one of it was found to be defective. The tender of the petitioner alone remained, and hardly there was any competition. Therefore, the respondent has issued the fourth tendernotice. This Court does not find any legal defect in the same. However, the respondent shall ensure that, the exercise is completedat least this time.
Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving it open to thepetitioner to participate in the process, in pursuance of the tendernotice, dated 10.12.2009, and the respondent shall endeavour tofinalize the process without leaving scope for any criticism, or causingburden on exchequer.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.31-12-2009.GJ
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.