Vagdevi And Vishnavi Minerals vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petitions. It noted that the petitioner had participated in the tender process and was awarded the letter of award and work order. However, the petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice was observed to be a request to drop further action and grant permission to maintain sand ramps. The Court referred to Clause 16 of the tender document concerning 'Termination of Agreement,' specifically sub-clauses (i)(a) and (i)(b), which allow termination for default or if required approvals are cancelled due to the contractor's fault, with forfeiture of the Performance Bank Guarantee. The Court found that if a declaration made by the petitioner was untrue, the District Level Sand Committee (DLSC) was entitled to take action. The Court concluded that the petitioner had filed a review petition after notice and intentionally violated tender conditions, establishing that the DLSC, as the competent authority, was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petitions.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Vagdevi And Vishnavi Minerals, participated in a tender process for manual extraction, loading, and transportation of sand in East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. They were selected as the successful bidder and issued a letter of award on October 16, 2024, followed by a work order on October 18, 2024. Subsequently, the District Mines and Geology Officer issued a show cause notice on October 26, 2024, alleging violations of tender conditions. The Joint Collector, the 4th respondent, revoked the letter of award on November 5, 2024, without considering the petitioner's explanation. This revocation was challenged and set aside by the High Court on November 15, 2024, for lack of power, with a direction to reconsider the matter. Following this, the 4th respondent issued fresh proceedings on November 28, 2024, cancelling the work order. The present writ petitions challenge this cancellation order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 4th respondent (Joint Collector) possessed the power to revoke the letter of award and subsequently cancel the work order issued to the petitioner, considering the previous High Court order setting aside the revocation due to lack of power? (Question of law turning on principles of administrative law and the specific powers conferred by G.O.Ms.No.49 dt.02-09-2024 and the tender conditions). Petitioner's arguments: The 4th respondent acted without jurisdiction and in violation of the High Court's previous order. The impugned order was passed without proper application of mind, misinterpreting the earlier court directive. The cancellation was not preceded by any notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents lacked the specific power or tender condition to cancel the contract on the grounds cited (furnishing incorrect information in an affidavit regarding dues and GST certificate), as the petitioner had provided explanations. Revenue's arguments: The tender notification was issued for selecting a contractor for sand operations. The petitioner participated, paid the bid security, and was issued a letter of award and work order. The Chief Secretary had instructed Joint Collectors to be in charge of sand operations. The petitioner's explanation in response to the show cause notice was considered. The court should consider whether the process adopted or decision made was mala fide, arbitrary, irrational, or affected public interest, citing precedents on judicial review in tender matters.