Star Iron Scrap Mart, Rep. by Its Proprietor, Jaleel Khan Vs. the Union Government of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Railways and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar pass books act, 1971. section 5(3) & a.p. record of rights in land and pattadar passbooks rules, 1989, rules 5 & 19: : [g.s. singhvi, c.j., & g.v. seethapathy, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] amendment of record of rights procedure held, proviso to section 5(1) and (3) represent statutory embodiment of the most important facet of rules of natural justice i.e., audi alterem partem. these provisions contemplate issue of notice to persons likely to be affected by action/decision of mandal revenue officer to carry out or not to carry out amendment in record of rights. similarly, a notice is required to be issued to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by amendment. a copy of amendment and notice is also required to be published in prescribed manner. the publication of notice in prescribed manner is in addition to notice, which is required to be given in writing to all persons whose names are entered in record of rights and who are interested in or affected by amendment and also to any other person whom recording authority has reason to believe to be interested in or affected by..........made a composite offer of rs. 15,01,000/- for reaches 1 to 5, rs. 21,21,210/- (composite) for reaches 6 to 10 and a composite amount of rs. 3,33,333/- for reaches 11 to 13. in so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, he had submitted separate tenders which is in consonance with the tender conditions. in fact, the total offer made by the petitioner was only rs. 39,55,543/-, while that of the 5th respondent was rs. 44,43,300/-. it has been authoritatively laid down by the supreme court in ramana v. la. authority of india, air 1979 sc 1678 that the constitutional remedy under article 226 of the constitution of india can be extended, if at the pre-contract level, tender conditions have been violated by the state. but, in the instant case, the tender conditions have not been violated by the state and on the other hand, the petitioner had violated the same. in the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. the interim order granted already stands vacated. no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in disregarding the highest bid offered by the petitioner and in not awarding the contract to the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, unfair and unjust.

2. For the purchase of Rail Polls and Tubular Polls along the railway track from Vijayawada to Bellampally, tenders were called for. The work was divided into 13 parts by tender Notice No. S/REF/66/1 to 13 for 13 reaches, fixing the last date for receipt of tenders as 25-7-1994 for 5 reaches, 26-7-1994 for another 5 reaches and 27-7-1994 for rest of the 3 reaches. The dates of opening of tenders for the above-mentioned 13 reaches were 25-7-1994, 26-7-1994 and 27-7-1994 respectively. Tender was to be submitted quoting the price separately for each of the 13 reaches. But, admittedly, the petitioner had submitted the rates in a consolidated manner for reaches 1 to 5 in one set, for reaches 6 to 10 in another set and reaches 11 to 13 in yet another set. It is averred by the petitioner that the total bid offered by him for all the 13 reaches is Rs. 50,54,543/- and that the 5th respondent had offered for all these 13 reaches a sum of Rs. 44,43,000/-. Even though initially, communication was sent to the petitioner, but ultimately, the tender was awarded in favour of the 5th respondent. Then the petitioner had filed O.P.No. 321 of 1994 and filed I.A.No. 6533 of 1994 and obtained stay of further action pursuant to the acceptance of tender of the 5th respondent, on 21-10-1994. By that time, the 5th respondent was not impleaded. Then 5th respondent filed I.A.No. 6827 of 1994, but the same was dismissed, against which revision was filed by the 5th respondent in C.R.P.No. 2696 of 1995 in this Court. After contest, the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada had vacated the stay which was earlier granted in I.A.No. 6533 of 1994 on the ground that OP. was not maintainable under law. The petitioner had filed Revision in CRP No. 494 of 1996 before this Court, but the same was dismissed by order dated 22-2-1996. Later, the Petitioner had withdrawn O.P.No. 321 of 1994 on 22-2-1996. As per the tender conditions, the tenders are required to deposit earnest money at the rate of 5% of the tender cost subject to a minimum of Rs. 50,000/- in cash or in the form of Bank demand draft for each tender. As such, separately for 13 tenders, earnest money deposit has to be made and admittedly, the petitioner did not comply the same. The petitioner made a composite offer of Rs. 15,01,000/- for reaches 1 to 5, Rs. 21,21,210/- (composite) for reaches 6 to 10 and a composite amount of Rs. 3,33,333/- for reaches 11 to 13. In so far as the 5th respondent is concerned, he had submitted separate tenders which is in consonance with the tender conditions. In fact, the total offer made by the petitioner was only Rs. 39,55,543/-, while that of the 5th respondent was Rs. 44,43,300/-. It has been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in Ramana v. LA. Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1678 that the constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be extended, if at the pre-contract level, tender conditions have been violated by the State. But, in the instant case, the tender conditions have not been violated by the State and on the other hand, the petitioner had violated the same. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim order granted already stands vacated. No costs.