T Narasimha Rao vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court rejected the petitioner's first contention that the tender could not have been issued by the Superintendent, relying on a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No.86 of 2021, which upheld a similar tender notification. The Court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the requirement of filing ESI and EPF certificates could not be insisted upon as they were not in G.O.Ms.No.325. The Court held that having participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the conditions and without demur, the petitioner could not later contend that the conditions were arbitrary. The Court noted that the tender conditions clearly required EPF and ESI certificates, and while there was a controversy regarding the GST certificate, there was no dispute that ESI and EPF certificates were not filed. Consequently, the rejection of the petitioner's bid for non-compliance with tender conditions could not be faulted. The Court found the rejection of the bid on account of non-compliance with tender conditions to be valid.

Facts

The petitioner, a Diet Contractor, bid for a tender issued by the Superintendent of Government Hospital, Kakinada, for supply of diet. The petitioner's financial bid was not opened in the first tender process, leading to a writ petition which was closed as the tender was cancelled. The petitioner participated in a fresh tender process. His technical bid was not processed, and the tender proceeded to the financial bid stage. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the non-consideration of his bid. The petitioner argued that the tender could not have been issued by the Superintendent and that his technical bid should have received more than 70 marks. The revenue stated that the petitioner's bid was rejected at the first stage of the technical bid evaluation for non-compliance with conditions, specifically the non-submission of GST, EPF, and ESI Registration Certificates.

Key Issues

1. Whether the tender notification issued by the Superintendent of Government Hospital, Kakinada, was valid, considering G.O.Ms.No.325, dated 01.11.2011, which stipulates that the District Diet Management Committee is responsible for calling tenders? (Question of law) 2. Whether the petitioner's technical bid should have been evaluated and awarded more than 70 marks, given his experience and other certificates? 3. Whether the requirement of submitting GST, EPF, and ESI Registration Certificates as technical bid conditions was valid, especially if not explicitly mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.325? Petitioner's arguments: The tender could not have been issued by the Superintendent as per G.O.Ms.No.325. The petitioner's experience certificates were sufficient for more than 70 marks, and non-allotment of marks was arbitrary. The conditions regarding EPF and ESI certificates were not in G.O.Ms.No.325 and thus could not be a bar. The petitioner stated across the bar that the GST Registration Certificate was filed. Revenue's arguments: The petitioner's bid was rejected at the first stage of technical bid evaluation for failing to furnish mandatory GST, EPF, and ESI Registration Certificates. The tender conditions clearly required these certificates.