The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.39438 of 2014 Dated 23.12.2014 Between:
Sai Subramanya Travels And …Petitioner The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad and another.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla Counsel for the respondents: Mr.N.S.Pattabhirama Rao for Mr.Nandigama Krishna Rao The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in rejecting the petitioner- firm’s offer in respect of tender No.ID:2014-SCCL-196-1 and Ref.No:E121400241 for supply of 10-T Capacity Non-Tipper Lorries (long & Short Chassis), as illegal and arbitrary.
At the hearing, Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the only ground on which his client’s tender referred to above was rejected was that in the column meant for “Offline EMD Fee Payment Details” instead of mentioning the EMD amount as Rs.3 lakhs in respect of the 15 vehicles offered by the petitioner, the total sum of Rs.12,80,000/-, representing the EMD payable for all the vehicles required by the respondents, was mentioned. He has further submitted that this mistake has occurred as the sum of Rs.3 lakhs, proposed to be mentioned in the said column, was not accepted by the computer.
Mr.N.S.Pattabhirama Rao, learned Counsel representing Mr.Nandiagama Krishna Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- Singareni Collieries Company Limited, submitted that the petitioner has obviously failed to follow proper method in mentioning the sum, as a result of which, the computer has evidently refused to accept the mentioning of the sum of Rs.3 lakhs. He has further pointed out that the petitioner has not approached the respondents with a representation, by pointing out the mistake committed by it, to enable the latter to consider the same.
If the rejection of the petitioner’s tender is based only on the ground of non-mentioning of the sum of Rs.3 lakhs and mentioning of the total sum of Rs.12,80,000/- in the column meant for “Offline EMD Fee Payment Details’, the same would be highly unreasonable. However, since the petitioner did not make any representation in this regard, it is appropriate that he makes such a representation and the respondents consider the same keeping in view the fact that considering the petitioner’s tender, if the same is otherwise valid, would be in public interest.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to respondent No.2 within three days. On such representation being made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 shall consider the same, take a decision thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner.
Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.49468 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 23rd December, 2014
Note:
CC in three days.
(B/o) LUR