Koppula Ramachandra Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court, after considering the submissions of both parties and perusing the available material, directed the third respondent (Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, Kakinada) to consider the petitioner's tender and pass a speaking order explaining the reasons for rejecting his tender at the first stage. This speaking order should be passed with reference to the instructions submitted by the respondents dated July 21, 2025, and must be issued within four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the Court's order. The Court did not delve into the merits of the disqualification itself but focused on ensuring a reasoned decision-making process. The Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction, and no order was made as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Koppula Ramachandra Rao, a registered contractor, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not accepting and opening his tender/bid for a contract work. The tender was submitted on May 16, 2025, with an estimated cost of Rs. 590.00 lakhs. The petitioner claims he submitted his bid through the e-procurement portal and physically submitted relevant documents on May 23, 2025. The respondents, through a written instruction dated July 21, 2025, stated that the petitioner was disqualified because technical documents were uploaded on the second page of the PDF file instead of the first, and other required documents were not uploaded online. The petitioner contended this action was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He also submitted a representation on July 8, 2025, seeking consideration of his bid.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in not accepting and opening the petitioner's tender/bid, citing the technical reason of document upload placement, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his bid was unfairly rejected without proper reasons. He contended that the rejection was arbitrary and violated his fundamental rights to equality and life and liberty. He relied on his representation dated July 8, 2025, seeking consideration of his bid. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through the learned Government Pleader, submitted written instructions stating that the petitioner was technically disqualified because he uploaded the Bank Guarantee (BG) in the first stage of the e-procurement portal but failed to upload other essential documents like Contractor Registration, PAN, GST, CA certificate, and similar nature of work certificates online. They asserted that this non-submission made technical evaluation impossible and rendered the bidder technically unqualified as per the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and PMGSY norms. They also noted that the first two bidders had qualified in the technical stage.