M/S National Road Lines Nalgonda vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s National Road Lines Nalgonda, challenged the action of respondents 3 and 4 in awarding a tender for transportation of paddy and gunnies to respondent 5. The petitioner claimed to be the lowest bidder with a quotation of +60.90%, while respondent 5 quoted +72%. The petitioner argued that their bid was wrongly disqualified due to an inadvertent mistake in not mentioning the full firm name 'Nalgonda' in the tender form. The respondents, however, stated that the petitioner's firm name was not mentioned in full in the tender form, leading to disqualification. They also addressed deficiencies pointed out by the petitioner in respondent 5's bid, asserting they were not mandatory.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner's firm name was indeed not fully mentioned in the tender form, the omission of 'Nalgonda' was an inadvertent mistake. The Court noted that the PAN card and GST registration certificate of the petitioner clearly showed the full name as 'M/s National Road Lines Nalgonda'. The Court reasoned that the respondents ought to have verified these details before disqualifying the petitioner on a non-consequential objection, especially given the significant gap between the petitioner's bid and the next lowest bidder, and the involvement of public exchequer. The Court directed respondents 3 and 4 to re-verify and reconsider the petitioner's bid if they were found to be the L1 tenderer. The petitioner was also directed to resubmit the demand drafts for Earnest Money Deposit (EMD), which were allegedly withdrawn under duress and not encashed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the disqualification of the petitioner's bid for not mentioning the full firm name 'M/s National Road Lines Nalgonda' in the tender form, despite being the lowest bidder, is illegal and arbitrary, violating Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the omission of 'Nalgonda' from the firm's name in the tender form was an inadvertent mistake and should not have led to disqualification, especially as they were the lowest bidder. They also alleged deficiencies in respondent 5's bid. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner's firm name was not mentioned in full in the tender form, which was a valid ground for disqualification. They also submitted that the alleged deficiencies in respondent 5's bid were not mandatory as per tender conditions and that the petitioner themselves had omitted certain information.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
oRDER: T PEf,ITIO h this writ Petition' Standing the Petitioner is seeking a Writ of ction of resPondents No'3 & 4 Mandamus to declare the a seeking to award the tender work in resPect of Kattangur Block/Kattan agur and Shaligowraram Mandals' Nalgonda trict for appointment of Contractors for transportation of Dis ln PaddY and Gunnies to the respondent No'5' in spite of the the lowest bidder bY quoting +60.90% as petitioner beinB '' of +72o/o, as illegal and ent No.5's quotabon against resPond arbitrarY and consequently to direct the respondents No'3 & 4 to declare the Pedtioner as L'1 and award the tender work to the Petitioner's hrm and to pass such other order or orders'
Heard Sri D' Linga Rao' learned corlnsel for the learned Government Pleader for Civil SuPPlies petitioner, d Sri T.P- AcharYa' learned appeanng for resPondent No'1 an nsel for Civil Supplies Corporation appearlnl: - Cou (-
1 2 behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. perused the material available on record.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the commercia-l bid of the petitioner has not been .onsidered by the respondents solely on the ground that the tender form of the petitioner did not contain the furl narrLe of the petitioner's firm i.e., M/s. National Road Lines Nalg.nda. It is submitted that it is only an inadvertent mistake and it should not have become a ground for disqualification for considering the bid of the petitioner which was the lowest. He has also brought out certain dehciencies in the tender form submitted by respondent No.5 as well and submitted that the respondents be directed to consider the technica-l as well as commercial bids of the petitioner and to declare it as L. 1 tenderer and award contract to the petitioner.
The respondent No.3-District Manager, Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Nalgonda, hrrs filed a counter a-ffrdavit stating that five parties have partic;.pated in the tender process and except for respondent No.S, all others,
including the petitioner herein' were found to be disqualihed for various reasons' As regards the petitioner' the reason for disqualihcation is mentioned that the name of the hrm was not rnentioned in full in the tender form' In respect of the defrciencies pointed' out by the petitioner in his reply affrdavit in respect of respondent No'5' the Corporation has hled a note giving a reply to each of the dehciencies' and according to the sard note, none of these details are compulsory as per tender conditions. It is also submitted that even the petitioner has not furnished some of the information that was quoted as a deficiency in respect of respondent No'5' As regards the mismatch of the address given in the case of respondent No'5 in the tender form and its GST certificate' it is stated that the said house number of the building and the place of the ofhce has been correctly mentioned and only thing that was missing was the name of the buitding i'e'' Shair Bunglow and therefore; it was found that there rs no mismatch in the and that respondent No'5 was found to have glven all address the details.
4
Having regard to the rival contentions and tl-re materia_l on record, this Court hnds that the petitioner's legally adopted the name as per the registration certihcate is, Nationa_l Road Lines Nalgonda. It is noticed that the starnp on s,lme of the documents filed before this Court contained t.he narne, National Road Lines Nalgonda, while in some documents, the starnp is as M/s. National Road Lines only. The rearjon for the difference in these two stamps is not known. However, the signature under the said starnp appears to be the same. However, it is noticed from the tender form that the name of the tenderer is mentioned as M/s. National Road l,ines only. The afhxture 'Nalgonda'is missing. Even in the column No.6, where the name and address of .the proprietor/partnerf Managing Director, is to be mentioned, it is shown as M/s. National Road Lines only. Even in the hnancia-l bid, the petitioner is shown as M/s. National Road Lines and the address is shown as at Nalgonda. Even in the Demand Draft forms, the cheques submitted for Earnest Monerr Deposit National (EMD), the name of the applicant is shown as M/s
5 Road Lines without any afhxture of Nalgonda' When the petitioner has registered the name of the ltrm as M/s' National Road Lines Nalgonda and when the registration certificate also shows the legal narne and trade name as National Road Lines Nalgonda, the petitioner ought to have mentioned t-he same in his tender form also. Non-mention of the correct name in the tender form would defrnitely raise questions about its identity.
However, on verification of the Pan card of petitioner's firm, it is noticed that the name of the petitioner is shown as National Road Lines Nalgonda and GST registration certificate also mentions the name as National Road Lines Nalgonda' Therefore, the petitioner ought to have shown its correct name i.e., National Road Lines |\algonda for hlling up the tender form. However when the above PAN and GST details have been furnished in the tender form, the respondents ought to have verihed the PAN and GST details and only if they were found to beincorrect,theyoughttohavedisqualilredthepetitioneron
6 the ground that the name of the petitioner IS incorrectlv mentioned
In view of the above, the respondents are directed to re- veri$ and reconsider the details furnished by the petitioner and thereafter, the case of the petitioner for awarding the subject tender work, if it was found to be L. 1 tenderer as claimed by him. It is also noteworthy that there is a huge gap between the quotation of the petitioner and the L-4 tenderer and on the technical and non-consequential objection, the tender of the petitioner/lowest tenderer ought not to have been ignored without veri$ring the details as public exchequer was involved.
In respect of the contention of respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has taken back the demand drafts relating to the EMD, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was by force that the letters of withdrawal of EMD's were obtained from the petitioner and other tenderers and that the said demand drafts have not been encasherl by the petitioner so far.
7 9 In such circumstances, the petitioner 1S hereby directed to resubmit the demand drafts and on receipt of such resubmission, the respondents No.3 & 4 shall re-verify and reconsider the case of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is the same as the petitioner mentioned in the GST and PAN card, then the respondents shall consid.er the bid of the petitioner for the purpose of awarding the tender work.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if aly, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. ABU /I// R SECTION FfICER '. L.LAKSHM ndststeHr Rect '" ; i$;Iffi itrtrffi.Bglffii$;x:Jffif,f,f,"''rr:", I PSK. B ll
I , t I HIGH COURT DATED:0511112024 ORDER WP.No.25700 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. _,4- /4/ \' /:o\' /.,.\ j ^ r f, o -t lIrJ 2[2] "; 7 0 C ..i. r! ,r .4,a jp^ /,/ oLq"i3W
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.