IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.33942 of 2014 BETWEEN Syed Aleemuddin.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Telangana State, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: DR. J. VIJAYALAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS (TG) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.
2. Petitioner is one of the tenders, who submitted his offer in response to the tender under NIT.No.11/b/E/E (R&B)/CBD/DB/HD/ e-proc/14-15 dated 16.06.2014, which concerns with respect to civil work and sanitary work at Ministers Quarter No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. A copy of the e-procurement print out is filed, relevant page of which shows that the there are four tenderers and out of that, it appears that the commercial bid relating to the petitioner alone was opened as other tenderers were stated to be not qualified for the opening of the commercial bid. Petitioner, therefore, states that he being the lowest tenderer having offered 16.86% less, the award of the work was recommended in his favour. However, no further order, as such, was issued accepting petitioner’s tender. Petitioner further states that while the process of allotment of work was under progress, the impugned G.O. was issued by the first respondent in G.O.Rt.No.104 Transport, Roads and Buildings (Buildings) Department dated 05.11.2014 taking a decision to take up the civil and sanitary work to the said quarter No.11 at nomination basis in view of the urgency and short time available to complete the work and subject to keeping budget provision as per FRBM Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid G.O., is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that it is clear arbitrary exercise of power inasmuch as having called for tenders and having found the petitioner as lowest bidder, it was not open for the Government to resile from the said decision and go by the process of nomination. Learned counsel also submits that the decision to get the work done though nomination basis is contrary to the Government policy of getting the work of this nature completed through process of tenders inviting offers.
4. Learned Government Pleader, who has placed before this Court the instructions received from the Executive Engineer, states that while the tender process was on, the Personal Assistant to Hon’ble Minister for Forests, who is allotted the aforesaid quarter, sent a request to take the said works in view of the urgency and accordingly, the impugned proceedings were issued for taking up work on nomination basis, in view of the urgency to complete the works, as the said quarter is allotted to the said Minister for Forests. It is also stated that appropriate communication has already been issued to the petitioner by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due on 07.11.2014 informing him that on account of administrative reasons, the tender called for the work in question is cancelled and accordingly, the petitioner was requested to collect the hard copies of the uploaded documents and the demand draft from the office.
5. I am unable to see any legal right in the petitioner in seeking that he being the lowest tenderer, the work is bound to be allotted to him. It is well settled that the tender notification is an invitation to offer and the offers given by the individual bidders would convert itself into a contract only on their unconditional acceptance by the authority calling the tenders. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no order accepting the tender of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner’s offer remained at that stage without any acceptance as contemplated under Section 7 of the Contract Act. I, therefore, do not see any legal right created in the petitioner to insist that his tender must be accepted and that the work must be allotted to him.
6. So far as arbitrariness alleged against the nomination basis is concerned, in my view, it is entirely for the Government to decide depending upon the urgency and exigency of work as to whether the work be completed by process of calling for tenders and then granting time to successful tenderer to complete the work or to get the work done on nomination basis in view of the urgency. Further, the Government is within its rights to cancel tenders before acceptance of any offer. The said decision taken by the Government canceling the tender process and to complete the work on nomination basis in view of the urgency and short time available to complete the work, in my view, cannot be said to be arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court and in any case, the work has not only to be completed within the budget and as such, I do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 18, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 20.11.2014.
(B/o) DSK