Harihar Saw Mill vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Harihar Saw Mill, challenged the dismissal of its writ petition by a learned Single Judge. The writ petition had challenged the award of a tender by the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (respondent No. 1) to M/s Krishna Reddy Saw Mill (respondent No. 3) for the supply of 1000 cubic metres of non-teak timber logs. The tender notice was issued on August 9, 2019. The appellant contended that respondent No. 3 did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, specifically Clause 4 of the tender notice, which required bidders to submit documents certifying they were vendors who purchased round timber from Government timber depots. The appellant argued that respondent No. 3 had not submitted proof of purchasing the entire 1000 cubic metres prior to bidding, and therefore, its tender should have been rejected.
Held
The Court held that Clause 4(a) of the tender notice merely requires the bidder to be a vendor who purchases round timber from Government Timber Depots. It does not impose a requirement that the bidder must have already purchased the entire quantity of 1000 cubic metres to be supplied in the future, prior to bidding. The insistence by the appellant that such prior purchase was mandatory was deemed a misplaced argument. The Court found that respondent No. 3 had submitted sufficient documents to establish that it bought timber from Government Timber Depots, fulfilling the requirement of Clause 4. The intention behind Clause 4 was to ensure that bidders sourced timber from legitimate Government depots, not illegally run ones. Regarding Clause 5, the Court found no evidence of respondent No. 3 submitting false information or misrepresenting facts. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was legally justified in dismissing the writ petition. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in concluding that respondent No. 3 fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the tender, despite not submitting documents proving prior purchase of 1000 cubic metres of timber, as argued by the appellant? 2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that respondent No. 3 should have been disqualified for not fulfilling the condition in Clause 4 of the tender notice, as argued by the appellant? 3. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in not noticing that respondent No. 3's tender should have been rejected outrightly for not submitting the required documents, as argued by the appellant? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that respondent No. 3 violated Clause 4 of the tender notice by not submitting documents proving the purchase of 1000 cubic metres of timber prior to bidding. They relied on the case of RAMANA DAYARA SHETTY v. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS, stating that tender conditions cannot be violated. They further argued that Clause 5, which mandates outright rejection for furnishing false information or misrepresentation, should have been applied. Contentions of the Revenue/State (Respondents No. 1 & 2): The judgment does not record specific arguments from respondents No. 1 & 2.
Sections Cited
Clause 4, Clause 5
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT WRIT APPEAL NO: 469 OF 2020
2 JUDGMENT: (Pet the Hon'bte the Chief Justice Sn Rashuendra Singh Chautwn) The appellant is aggrieved by order the dated 74 .O2.2O2O , passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 26600 of 2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arraved in the u'rit petition. The petitioner had challenged the arvarding of tender b1' the respondent No. 1 to respondent No.3, M/ s Krishna Reddv Sar.r' Mill and Timber Depot, on 12.11.2019 for supply of one thousand cubic metres of non-teak miscellaneous hardr.r,ood round timber logs ('timber', for short). The brief facts of the case are that on 09.08.2019 the Additional General Manager (Forestry) issued a tender notice, calling for the tenders for the supply of one thousand cubic metres of timber of good quality, which is purchased from any of the Government timber depots by the vendors. According to the petitioner, both the petitioner and the respondent No.3 participated in the tender process. Moreover, according to the petitioner, it is the only tenderer, who has the required qualification of having a capacitll to supply one thousand cubic metres of the said timber. Moreover, according to the petitioner, according to Clause 4 of the tender notice, the tenderers were required to submit documents clearly revealing the fact that they had bought the timber of the required quantity of one thousand cubic metres from the Government Timber Depot. However, the respondent No.3 had not submitted anv such documents to indrcatc that had bought one thousand cubic metres of the timber from the Government Timber Depot. Yet still, the n'ork order q,as awarded to the respondent No.
The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently pleaded that despite the fact that the respondent No.3 did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, the learned Single Judge has erred in concluding that since the respondent No.3 had fu1fil1ed the eligibility criteria, the respondent No.2 was justified in awarding the tender to the respondent No.
Moreover, relying on the case of RAMANA DAYARA SHETTY v. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERSI, the learned counsel lurthcr submits that once the conditions are prescribecl in the tender notice, the conditions cannot be violated by a participant. Since the respondent No.3 Clause 4, he should did not fulfitl the condition contained in have, 111 fact, been disqualilied b5, the respondent No.
Even this facet has not been appreciated by the Iearned Single Judge. Further, according to Clause 5, if any false information is furnished in the forms/ certificates/ statement submitted in proof of qualilication requirements, the tender should be rejected outrightly. According to the learned counsel, since the required documents \^,ere not submitted by the respondent No.3, in fact, his tender should have been rejected outrightly by the respondent No.
Even this facet has not been noticed by the learncd Single Judge. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order deserr.es to be set aside. 1 ( I97-i) .i SCC .+89
1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, and considered the records submitted by the appellant, and perused the impugned order. The tender notice clearl1, indicates that a quantity ol one thousand cubic metres of non-teak timber logs needs to be supplied by the person, u,ho is given the work order. However, Clause 4 of the tender notice is as follo*'s: "The bidders shall upload the following documents/ certificates/statements (a) The bidders shall upload the documents that certify that the bidder is a vendor who purchased round timber at any of the Government timber depots for technical scrutiny of bids. A copy of the document shall be uploaded (mandatory). b) Bankers name and address c) lncome Tax Permanent Account Number with copy of the PAN Card. d) GST registration No./TlN No. e) Full and correct postal address with PIN code, email id, mobile no. to which all the communications should be sent". A perusal of Clause 4 clearly reveals that Clause 4(a) merelv requires lhat "the bidder should be a uendor uho purchases the round timber at ang of the Gouentment Timber Depots" . The saicl clause does not impose anv requirement that one thousand cubic metres to be supplied in future to the respondent No.2 should already be purchased by the bidder. Therefore, the insistence by the learned counsel for the appellant that even prior to bidding, the bidder must have purchased one thousand cubic metres of timber, is a highly misplaced argument. For, the said requirement is nowhere prescribed in Clause 4. 5 A bare perusal o[ the record clearll' reveals that the respondent No.3 had submitted sufficient documents to establish the lact that it bought the timber from the Government Timber Depots. This is all that is required by Clause 4 of the tender notice. The intention behind Clause 4 is to ensure that the bidder rvould buy the timber from the Government Timber Depot, and not from illegally run timber depots. Therefore, the arguments that the bidder must have already bought the quantity to be supplied is clearly unacceptable. Clause 5 clearly states that the bidder is liable to be disqualified and blacklisted, and EMD will be forfeited if lalse information is furnished in the forms/ certificates / statemen ts submitted in proof of his qualification requirements and mrslead the companl'. Hor.r-ever, there is not an iota of evidence to shovv that the respondent No.3 made anv mis-statement of fact, or has submitted falsc information. A bare perusal of the record clearll reveals, as mentioned above, that the respondent No.3 had submitted sufficient documents to establish the fact that it \1,as buying timber from the Government Timber Depot. Therefore, even this contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is unsustainable. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Single Judge has correctly concluded that there is no requirement of the tender notice that the bidder must have already bought the quantit]. of timber to be supplied to the respondent No.2, prior to sllbmrttrng his bid. Therefore, thc learncd Single Judge u'as legallr' justified in dismissing the u,rit petition.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The writ petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. . C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA DEPUTY REGIS R //// SECTION OFFICER 6 To, 1 2 3 4 CHR One CC to Sri K. Venumadhav, Advocate lOpUCl One CC to Sri J. Srrnivasa Rao, Advocare tbpUCi One CC to Srr T. Bala lVohan Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies
HIGH COURT DATED:0911112020 JUDGMENT W.A.No.469 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COTS r0 5r-oltart 21 DEC 2s20 14: o * o 'rtE S IrC r:Sar." i i (Jr1 a- ?i 1 "i7 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.