The Ap Web Offset Printers Association vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The High Court held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. The Court found that the representation dated January 9, 2024, was not connected to the impugned tender notification dated February 2, 2024, as it was submitted prior to the issuance of the tender. The Court noted that subsequent objections submitted by Petitioner No. 1 on January 29, 2024, had already been considered by the Judge, Judicial Preview. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that judicial review in tender matters is limited to preventing arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, and mala fides, and should not interfere if the decision is bona fide and in the public interest, even if there are procedural aberrations. The Court concluded that the process adopted by the authorities was not intended to favor anyone, there was no mala fide, and public interest was not affected. Therefore, the impugned tender could not be quashed. The petitioners were granted liberty to participate in the tender process if they were otherwise eligible. No costs were awarded.

Facts

The petitioners, an association of printers and individual printing firms, filed a writ petition challenging an e-procurement notice for printing textbooks for the academic year 2024-25. The petitioners contended that a representation submitted by Petitioner No. 1 on January 9, 2024, regarding the procurement of paper by printers was pending before the State government. However, the e-procurement notice was issued on February 2, 2024, and the petitioners argued that their representation, submitted prior to the tender notification, should have been considered. The respondents argued that the representation dated January 9, 2024, was not related to the impugned tender notification as it was submitted before the tender was issued. They also noted that subsequent objections dated January 29, 2024, were considered by the Judge, Judicial Preview.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable on the ground that a representation dated January 9, 2024, submitted by Petitioner No. 1, was pending before the State government, when the impugned e-procurement notice was issued on February 2, 2024? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that their representation, submitted on January 9, 2024, concerning the procurement of paper by printers, was pending and should have been considered before the issuance of the e-procurement notice dated February 2, 2024. They contended that the issuance of the tender notification while their representation was pending constituted a cause of action. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondents argued that the representation dated January 9, 2024, was not connected to the impugned tender notification because it was submitted much before the tender was issued. They further stated that subsequent objections submitted by Petitioner No. 1 on January 29, 2024, were already considered by the Judge, Judicial Preview. The respondents also relied on Supreme Court judgments in "M/s.N.G.Projects Limited Vs. M/s. Vinod Kumar Jain and others," "Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa," and "Uflex Ltd. v. Government of T.N." to argue against judicial interference in tender matters unless there is mala fide, arbitrariness, or public interest is affected.