Mohd. Iqbal Ali vs. The Director Of Agriculture Marketing Dept
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mohd. Iqbal Ali, a proprietor of Metro Tech Centre with 40 years of experience in repairing weighing machines, filed a writ petition challenging the actions of various Agricultural Market Committees (AMCs) and their officials. The petitioner alleged that despite being the lowest bidder in multiple tender processes for the maintenance of weighbridges, the contracts were awarded to the 11th respondent, Ventek Weighing System, who quoted significantly higher prices and allegedly lacked the necessary experience and genuine license. The petitioner also claimed irregularities in the tender notifications, including unclear specifications and unnecessary clauses, and alleged collusion between officials and the successful bidder. The petitioner's EMD was also not returned promptly. The respondents, primarily AMCs, contended that the petitioner failed to submit required documents like Income Tax Returns, GST registration, and experience certificates, leading to the award of contracts to the second lowest bidders who complied with the tender conditions.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had not established a prima facie case of illegality or irregularity. The Court noted the clear and categorical averments in the counter-affidavit filed by Respondents No. 4 to 9. It was stated that while the petitioner may have quoted the lowest price, he failed to submit the mandatory documents, including Income Tax Return, GST registration, and experience certificate. Consequently, the work was allotted to the second lowest bidder who had complied with all the tender conditions. The Court found no proof of mala fides on the part of the respondent authorities. Therefore, the Court concluded that it could not accept the petitioner's contentions. The Writ Petition was dismissed. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court addressed the core grievance regarding the tender allotment based on the submitted counter-affidavit.
Key Issues
1. Whether the actions of Respondents No. 4 to 11 in awarding maintenance contracts for weighbridges to the 11th respondent, despite the petitioner being the lowest bidder, were illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of tender rules and guidelines? (Question of law and fact, concerning tender procedures and contract allotment). 2. Whether the tender notifications issued by Respondents No. 4 to 9 were clear, specific, and compliant with the prescribed norms and guidelines for calling tenders? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of tender process). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the tender process was flawed, with contracts being awarded to less qualified bidders at higher prices. They contended that the notifications lacked clarity and contained extraneous clauses, and that the authorities acted with mala fide intentions. The petitioner relied on the principle that lowest bidders should generally be awarded contracts if they meet the criteria. Respondents' arguments: Respondents No. 4 to 9 argued that the petitioner failed to submit essential documents such as Income Tax Returns, GST registration, and experience certificates, which were mandatory as per the tender schedule. They asserted that the tender notifications were issued in accordance with the norms and guidelines provided by the first respondent and denied any mala fides. They stated that the work was allotted to the second lowest bidder who had submitted all the required documents.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 129, Rule 86A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following ORDER
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2736 OF 2O2l ORDER: Petitioner is a license holder in repairing, maintaining and manufacturing of weighing machines and scales obtained from the Department of Legal Metrolory, having business centre under the name and style of 'Metro Tech Centre', Nirmal with 40 years experience. It is stated that main aim of the government to constitute and establish AMCS (Agricultural Market Committees) is to coordinate between farmers / sellers and buyers to seIl their agricultural produce in a reasonable and friendly environment so that poor farmers shall not be exploited by the middlemen / buyers and to maintain good coordination; these AMCs. were given responsibilities / duties / functions and they have to look into proper maintenance of machineries i.e. weighing bridges etc., in the premises of AMCs. through proper experts and also to hold proper license from the concerned department of kgal Metrologr and shall also have experience for tJ.e purpose.
2 It is stated that petitioner having 40 years experience used to participate in biddings whenever ca-lled for by the AMCs. for repairing and maintenance of such weigh bridges, machines etcetera. The 46 respondent - Secretary, AMC, Bhainsa, issued notihcation on 30.09.2019 calling for tenders and petitioner submitted tender quoting lowest price, however, work was given to the 11ft respondent, being Proprietor of Ventek Weighing System, who quoted almost double the prices and who does not have any experience and genuine license for executing such type of works. It is the case of petitioner that he deposited EMD of Rs.3O,OOO/-, however, he was neither informed why he was not given the work nor returned the EMD. Almost after more than 7 months, when petitioner questioned the authorities, they simply handed over Demand Draft for Rs.30,0O0/-; further, the 4ft respondent cleared the amount to the llft respondent without getting completed all the process of said work assigned to him, through the experts i.e. l,egal Metrologr Ofhcers, inspection, verification and stamping, certification etcetera. Again in 201 1, the authorities called for tenders and petitioner is stated to have participated in the bid by quoting Rs.39,0O0/- only, whereas the 11h respondent quoted ,3' _.:.!,
3 Rs.1,75,O00/-, however, the 4fr respondent issued work in its favour, further as stated above, the 4d respondent runs the market process without getting recertihcation of work of said weighbridges, etc., for almost year. According to petitioner, first of all, Notifrcation should be published in a newspaper having good circulation in that area, and so also in the surrounding districts of State, Notification must be very clear and specific about the work for which tender was called for in all aspects from the machineries capacity, and also eligibility, qualification criteria of the prospective bidders etcetera, and tender form should contain necessary information. It is stated that the Notihcation did not fulfil the above, instead, the form contains unnecessary clauses under which it is asked ISO, and ESI. When petitioner questioned these illegalities and lapses in the above process, the authorities, with a mala ftde intention, ignored his tender quotations even though he quoted lowest prices among all bidders for which he made complaint to all the higher authorities and even got issued legal notices to Respondents 5 and 9, but no action has been initiated. Petitioner's case is that the tenderer/ successful bidder should bear regular fees, charges for verifrcation and stamping through legal metrolory
4 ofhcer for the works carried out by him in such AMCs, however, the 4d, respondent while making agreement with the I l ff respondent got mentioned in agreement that tenderer/bidder is not responsible for charges and fees for stamping and verifi cation from ofllces concerned. It is stated that petitioner got issued legal notice to Respondents 5 and 9 but he did not get positive response; the higher-ups i.e. Respondents l and 2 also even though they received complaints, kept quiet. It is stated that the 1Oth respondent illegally allowed the I ld, respondent who is not eligible for stamping. The los respondent made one more attempt by engaging one person Mr. Ayaz Ahmed Khan who is the proprietor of weighing measuring digital services for only issuing vouchers of stamping and who is not a participant in AMC's maintenance tender and no way concerned to AMC but illegally issued vouchers ald the lofr respondent illegaIly and blindly accepted the same and put a stamp of AMC Bhainsa weighing instrument. It is stated that in fact, thr: lle respondent obtained license of legal metrolory department using his late father's name and also his brother,s name who was and is also Inspector at Warangal and grabbed the opportunity though the llh respondent is not having any l I
5 workshop or technical experience and he is only useful for this type of dummy works and collecting bribe from traders and sharing with officials. The 106 respondent being Inspector, Legal Metrologr, Nirmal and is also Assistant Controller, Karimnagar ought to have taken action against such illegal activities by persons like Respondents 11 and 12, instead he is supporting them. Hence, the Writ Petition.
In the counter-affidavit hled on behalf of Respondents 4 to 9 by the Selection Grade Secretary, Agriculture Market Committee, Bhainsa, it is stated that petitioner is trying to vent his personal vengeance against issuance of contracts to his adversaries and has not made out a prima facie case of any illegality or irregularity committed by the answering Respondents. It is stated that the 4ft respondent issued Tender Notice dated 27.O9.2O2O and it was published in newspapers; four Applications were received including petitioner's. It is stated, though petitioner quoted Rs.39,O00/- and the llth respondent Rs. 75,000/-, work has been issued to the Iatter as he submitted all the documents as required under Tender Schedule conditions and petitioner failed to do so. It is stated that petitioner is making false allegations against
6 respondents. It is denied that the respondents are allotting tenders to the interested persons. It is stated that Respondents 4 to 9 issued tender notice in different dates calling for tenders for maintenance of Weigh Bridges in Market yards following the procedure laid down by the lsr respondent dated 06. 10.2017; respondents received and opened the sealed tenders and after careful scrutiny, allotted works to the lowest tenderer. The 4u. respondent received four tender Applications. Though petitioner is the lowest bidder, he has not submitted Income Tax Return, GST registration and experience certificate, hence work was allottecl to the 1 16 respondent who is the 2.d lowest. The 5h respondent received three Applications and tender work was allotted to the 11ft respondent as he was the lowest bidder. The 6th respondent received three Applications and Sriven Industries was allotted work as it was the lowest bidder. The 7ft respondent received only tender Application of the petitioner and it was rejected on the ground of not submitting required documents. The Sft respondent received three Applications and work was allotted to Sriven Industries as it was the lowest bidder. The 9m respondent received three Applications arrd the work was allotted to the llth respondent as he was the lowest
7 bidder. It is stated that petitioner without submitting proper documents is making false aliegations against Respondents 4 to 9 as he was not able to succeed in obtaining tender works at Respondent ma.kJt committees. Hence, pleads to dismiss the Writ Petition.
Heard Mrs. Nusrath Shahezadi, learned counsel for petitioner and Mrs. G. Neeraja Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 4 to 9. 4. The main grievance of petitioner is that he submitted Applications for allotment of work to Respondents 4 to 9, though he is the lowest bidder, the lltn respondent was allotted the work, whereas Respondents 4 to 9 while admitting that petitioner is the lowest bidder, states that he was not allotted works for, he has not submitted income tax return, GST registration and experience certificate, hence, work was allotted to the 1lft respondent, who is the second lowest bidder and who submitted the required documents. Petitioner also alleged that respondents have not published the notification in newspapers and Notification must be very clear and specilic about the work, instead it contains unnecessary clauses. For this, Respondents 4 to 9 submits that Notifications were issued in accordance with norms and guidelines issued by the government uide Circular I .: I
8 To 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. I dated 04. IO.2O|7 and petitioner failed to establish any mala jides on their part. In view of the clear and categorical averments in the counter-affidavit and in the absence of any proof as to the mala fi.des on the part of respondent authorities, this Court cannot accept the contentions of petitioner. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.
The Writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER Two CCs to GP FOR AGRICULTURE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR MINES, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to Sri Nusrath Shahezadi, Advocate IOPUCI One CC to Sri G.Neeraja Reddy, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies SA GJP
It I , HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 210312024 ORDER WP.No.2736 of 2021 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 11t€ S 141(-- k e nc (.) 2 3 APB 2024 ?l.sparctr eO ]. I .+ i W- I rIt I
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.