Eagle Consultancy Services vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's quoted bid amount of Rs.17,700/- per head per month was less than the minimum prescribed amount of Rs.20,576/- per head per month as stipulated in tender condition No.5(14) and Schedule-A of the price bid. This constituted a violation of the tender terms and conditions. Consequently, the petitioner's financial bid was not approved, and the show cause notice was issued appropriately. The Court found no grounds to grant relief to the petitioner to proceed with the cancelled tender. However, since the entire tender was cancelled to facilitate a fresh process, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, who was free to participate again if eligible. The Court also directed the respondent to ensure necessary precautions are taken for portal functionality in future tenders.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Eagle Consultancy Services, participated in an e-procurement tender issued by Respondent No. 3 for providing watchmen cum helpers. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 02.11.2023, alleging violation of minimum wage norms as per G.O.Ms.No.7 and causing financial loss. The petitioner submitted a reply on 17.11.2023. Subsequently, the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was returned, and the tender was cancelled. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1005 of 2024 challenging the show cause notice and non-consideration of their explanation, and W.P.No.5666 of 2024 challenging the cancellation of the tender notification.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's quoted bid amount violated the terms and conditions of the e-procurement tender, specifically regarding the minimum wages to be paid as per G.O.Ms.No.7 and Schedule-A of the price bid. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner participated in the bid and submitted a reply to the show cause notice. The EMD was returned, and the tender was cancelled without proper consideration of their explanation. The petitioner also raised issues regarding portal functionality during bid submission. Respondent's Contention: The petitioner quoted Rs.17,700/- per head per month, which was less than the minimum prescribed amount of Rs.20,576/- per head per month (inclusive of Basic Pay, EPF, ESI, GST, and Taxable Income) as per tender condition No.5(14) and Schedule-A. This violation led to the financial bid not being approved, the issuance of the show cause notice, and the subsequent cancellation of the tender to initiate a fresh process.
Sections Cited
G.O.Ms.No.7, Finance (HR-I-Plg and Policy) Department dated 17.01.2022, Tender condition No.5(14), Schedule-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following Common Order:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.
The linked image cannot be display ed. The file may hav e been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. V erify that the link points to the correct file and location.
The W.P.No.1005 of 2024 is filed questioning the show cause notice dated 02.11.2023 and non-consideration of the explanation of
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.