Radha Printers vs. The State Of Ap

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Regarding the issue of prematurity, the Court noted that the petitioner was aware of being declared L-2 after the financial bids were opened on March 6, 2019, and the information was in the public domain. The petitioner's subsequent application for details and the subsequent reply letter did not create a new cause of action. The Court found that the price bids quoted by the petitioner online (Rs. 5,20,56,000/-) were higher than those quoted by the third respondent (Rs. 4,81,35,800/-), making the third respondent L-1. The Court accepted the respondents' contention that the third respondent's bid was in accordance with tender conditions under Clauses 15 and 16, and no tender conditions were violated. The Court also found that the petitioner's own bid had discrepancies, with different prices quoted online and physically, and that Clause 16.2 of the tender conditions stipulated that the e-tender price would prevail. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or arbitrariness in the tender finalization process or in the reply letter dated March 18, 2019.

Facts

The petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder in a tender process, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated March 18, 2019, from the second respondent. This letter informed the petitioner that only the third respondent, M/s. Hitech Printers, was technically qualified. The petitioner argued that the third respondent's bids violated specific tender clauses (23 and 25) and that their consideration was illegal and arbitrary. The tender, issued on February 14, 2019, had a deadline for bid submission on February 28, 2019. The petitioner claimed to have submitted tender documents as per Clause 15. The petitioner also noted a discrepancy in their own bid, quoting Rs. 7184/- online and Rs. 6184/- physically for a specific item, and highlighted alleged flaws in the third respondent's bid, including issues with packaging and forwarding charges and GST. The petitioner was declared L-2 and the third respondent L-1.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable as premature, given that the impugned letter dated March 18, 2019, is merely a correspondence in response to the petitioner's query and not a final decision or award, as argued by the third respondent, thereby questioning the maintainability of a writ of mandamus. 2. Whether the bids submitted by the third respondent were in accordance with Clauses 15 and 16 of the Tender Conditions, specifically regarding the format of financial bids (Formats III-A and III-B) and the inclusion/exclusion of costs like packaging, forwarding, and GST, as contended by the petitioner, or if they substantially complied, as argued by the third respondent. 3. Whether the discrepancy in the petitioner's own bid, quoting different rates online and physically for the same item, renders their challenge unsustainable, particularly in light of Clause 16.2 of the tender conditions which mandates that the e-tender price is supreme, as argued by the respondents. Petitioner's arguments focused on the alleged non-compliance of the third respondent with tender conditions, leading to an arbitrary selection of L-1. Respondents' arguments centered on the prematurity of the writ petition, the substantial compliance of the third respondent's bid, and the petitioner's own bid discrepancies and higher quoted price.