M/S Y Koteswar Rao vs State Of Telangana

,,,

The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 21.12.2021 passed in W.P.No.25151 of 2021 filed by the appellant herein.,,,

The facts of the case reveal that a tender notification was issued on 23.09.2021 for supply of diet in the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and",,,

pursuant to the aforesaid tender notification, ten participants have submitted their technical bids as well as financial bids in two covers as per the terms",,,

and conditions of the tender notification. The facts further reveal that out of ten participants, three participants were disqualified in technical bid itself",,,

and seven participants qualified in the first round and four participants have cleared the second round and the work was entrusted to the respondent,,,

No.5 in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal.,,,

The appellant/writ petitioner stated before the learned Single Judge that he is having an experience of 28 years as a Diet Contractor, he has quoted",,,

Rs.36/- per patient and attendant. However, as per the marking done by the respondents, he has received only 23 marks. The contract was awarded",,,

to the respondent No.5. The learned Single Judge, after taking into account all the grounds raised by the appellant/petitioner has dismissed the writ",,,

petition. The Order passed by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 14 to 17 read as under:-,,,

“14. In the counter filed by the respondent No.4 on behalf of the official respondents, it was stated that the petitioner has not submitted annual",,,

turnover for the latest year i.e. 2020-2021 and also not submitted IT returns for the said year. Thus, the petitioner did not fulfill the tender conditions.",,,

Further the petitioner does not have locus standi to question the action of the respondent No.2 in awarding contract to the respondent No.5. The,,,

respondent No.5 has fulfilled the conditions mentioned in the tender document as per clause 4(B)(i)(b). The respondent No.5 submitted evidence of,,,

rendering services in two hostels for around 550 to 600 students including services rendering at present at TIMS, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District,",,,

which is 1261 bedded hospital. Therefore, the committee has awarded 95 marks to the respondent No.5 in the technical bid. Out of 10 tenderers,",,,

technical bids of three tenderers were rejected. The tender of Y. Srinivas was rejected since he quoted less than Rs.36/-. Out of the remaining four,,,

tenderers, one G. Jaipal Reddy quoted Rs.40/-. All others including the petitioner quoted Rs.36/-. The respondent No.2 committee has to consider and",,,

take a decision as to who would be more suitable in executing the diet contract in the respondent No.4 hospital.,,,

In the counter filed by the respondent No.5, it was stated that the petitioner has misled the Court and made false allegations. The respondent No.5",,,

has more than 5 years experience in providing catering services to hostels and produced relevant certificates in that regard. The same was considered,,,

by the official respondents qualifying the respondent No.5 to the next level.,,,

The ground urged by the petitioner is that the respondent No.5 is not qualified. However, in view of the categorical statements made in the counter",,,

affidavits filed by the respondents No.4 and 5 that the respondent No.5 has five years experience as Diet Contractor in rendering catering services to,,,

hostels, colleges, railway canteens etc. which remain uncontraverted, this Court finds that there are no merits in such submission.",,,

Further, responding to the submission of the learned Government Pleader, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government of",,,

India has issued circular dated 09.09.2021 extending time for submitting IT returns for the Assessment year 2021-2022 and the same has to be,,,

considered by the respondent No.4. In the opinion of this Court such contention is liable to be rejected as it is not for this Court to re-write the,,,

eligibility conditions or interpret the conditions to suit the petitioner. The fact remains that the tender condition with regard to IT returns has not been,,,

fulfilled by the petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition.â€​",,,

In order to appreciate the controversy involving in the present case, it is necessary for this Court to look into the tender conditions of the",,,

Notification. Clauses 4-D and 5-A of the tender notification, i.e., Conditions and Tender Evaluation reads as under:-",,,

“4. SELECTION CRITERIA:-,,,

A to C xxxxxx,,,

D. Documents to be submitted under B above,,,

(i) Experience Certificate/s issued by the concerned hospital authorities or institutions, as the case may be, duly signed by the authorised and",,,

competent official affixing the seal.,,,

(ii) Audited approved annual financial statements for immediate preceding 3 years.,,,

(iii) Income Tax returns filed for the immediate preceding 3 years. (*),,,

(iv) GST returns filed for the immediate preceding 3 years. (*),,,

(*) Where the tender is for hospital of below 50 beds and the Tenderer is not able to submit the IT & GST returns on valid and reasonable grounds,",,,

the District Diet Management Committee being the tender inviting authority, shall have the right to accept the tender on such terms and conditions as it",,,

may consider necessary and appropriate.,,,

(v) A solvency certificate issued by any of the schedule commercial banks where the Tenderer is holding the account, for Rs.5.00 lakhs if the tender",,,

is for 500 bed hospital; Rs.2.00 lakhs if the tender is for 200 bed hospital; and Rs.1.00 lakh if the tender is for 100 bed hospital.,,,

(vi) Satisfactory performance certificate issued by the competent authority of the government hospitals/institutions where the Tenderer had the,,,

experience under item 1 above.,,,

TENDER EVALUATION,,,

A. Opening of Cover-I of Tender and Evaluation,,,

(i) On the date and time notified, cover-1 of the tender received will be opened in the presence of the representatives of the Tenderers (not more than",,,

one representing each Tenderer with due authorisation from the Tenderer) if opted. The name of the Tenderer, the name of the hospital for which",,,

tendered and the details of the EMD paid will be announced. Each such representative shall have to sign the Register of their presence. The,,,

authorisation letter will have to be surrendered.,,,

(ii) Firstly, responsive check will be carried out to ensure that all the relevant documents and tender formats are duly submitted complete in all",,,

respects along with the requisite EMD. Where the EMD is not paid or the requisite documents are not submitted or incomplete in any respect will be,,,

Sl.

No.",Criteria Under Cl.4 (b),"Maximum

Marks","Marks

Secured

1,Technical Experience,50,

,a) Minimum period of experience,35,-

,"b) For every additional year of

experience 3 marks per year upto a

Maximum of 15 marks",15,-

2,Annual Turnover,25,

,a) Minimum annual turnover,20,-

,"b) For every additional annual turnover

of Rs.2.00 lakhs each year for all the

3 years period, 1 mark",5,-

3,IT Returns submitted,15,

,a) For all 3 years,10,-

,"b) For each additional year â€" 1 mark

per year not exceeding 5 marks",5,-

4,GST Returns submitted,10,

,a) For all 3 years,5,-

,"b) For each additional year â€" 1 mark

per year not exceeding 5 marks.",5,-

,Total,100,-