HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.Nos.14646 and 14702 of 2014 Date : 9-12-2014 Between :
VIBSRVR Consortium, Represented by its Authorised Signatory Mr. R. Anil ..
Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Medical Services & Infrastructure Development Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P. Girish Kumar Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri C. Appaiah Sharma Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 27 : Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family Welfare The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.14702 of 2014 is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not opening the price bid of the petitioner in respect of package Nos.17, 22, 29, 37, 43, 46 and 50 relating to the work of providing sanitation and security services in different Government Hospitals/Colleges under the control of respondent No.2 to 27, as illegal and arbitrary.
Initially, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14646 of 2014 seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to consider its tender by opening the financial bid. As the petitioner has restricted the relief only to three items of works in the said Writ Petition, it has filed W.P.No.14702 of 2014 for the remaining items of the work.
The petitioner is the consortium of a company and a f i rm . It has submitted its tender in pursuance of e- procurement invitation notices issued by respondent No.1 on 4-10-2013 for providing sanitation and security services in different Government Hospitals and Teaching Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh, grouped as 52 Package works. Originally, condition No.3.1 of the tender conditions stipulated that the tenderer must be a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 or any proprietary concern, either individual or a partnership firm. However, following the representations made by certain intending tenderers in the pre-bid meeting the said condition was modified to the effect that the consortium is also considered with sanitation agency as prime agency. On 22-1-2014, respondent No.1 has opened the technical bids. However, the petitioner came to know that on 16-5-2014, respondent No.1 has opened the financial bids relating to some of the works out of the 52 packages and that on enquiries it came to know that respondent No.1 has not opened the financial bid submitted by the petitioner on the ground that it failed to qualify itself in the technical bid evaluation as it did not enclose valid registration with the Labour Department in terms of Clause 2.1.6 of the tender conditions.
The petitioner averred that the ground on which its technical bid was rejected, namely, that it has failed to produce the Labour license, is not sustainable for the reason that in the pre-bid meeting, it was greed that the VAT registration certificate and statutory Labour license may be produced by the tenderer if he emerges as the successful bidder.
On behalf of respondent No.1, a counter affidavit is filed by its Managing Director wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner is not disqualified on the ground of filing of tender through consortium; that, however, as per clause 2.1.6 of Section-II of the bid document either party to the consortium/joint venture shall produce the evidence of holding the Labour license; that the petitioner has not explained in the affidavit filed by it as to why it did not chose to file the Labour license; and that the clarification given on 30-10-2013 in the pre-bid meeting was applicable to the intending bidders of other States only.
From the pleadings contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is evident that the main ground on which the petitioner’s price bid was not opened was non-adherence to condition 2.1.6 of the tender conditions. Section-II of Instructions to bidders deals with eligibility to bid for sanitation and security services. Condition 2.1.6 thereof prescribed that a tenderer should have possessed valid registration with the Labour Department. It is no doubt true that in the pre-bid clarification, evidently on the clarification sought by the intending bidders from outside the State, it was clarified that the Labour license can be produced by the successful bidder later. In my opinion, possession of valid registration with the Labour Department being an essential tender condition, the failure of the petitioner to satisfy the said requirement renders its technical bid invalid. As rightly pleaded by the respondents, the pre-bid clarification is applicable only to the bidders belonging to outside the State. Even in respect of the said category of bidders, their Labour registration in their respective States was insisted upon. In the light of the above facts, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in respondent No.1 disqualifying the technical bids of the petitioner.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petitions, interim orders dated 23-5-2014 and 29-5-2014 passed in the respective Writ Petitions are vacated and WPMP No.18175 of 2014 and WVMP No.1496 of 2014 in W.P.No.14646 of 2014 and WPMP Nos.18234 and 18235 of 2014 and WVMP No.1575 of 2014 in W.P.No.14702 of 2014 are disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 9-12-2014 AM