JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent in writ petition at the interlocutory stage and the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at their request.
2. The petitioner filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the proceedings of the General Manager, Telecom Warangal Area, Hanamkonda in No. TAW/ED-16N/1999-2000/5, dated 1-6-1999 as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction. With regard to the cable tenders of Nalgonda Telecom District, it is informed in the said proceedings that approval of the General Manager Telecom, Warangal Area is hereby conveyed for awarding cable trench digging of reinstatement works of Nalgonda SSA to the four tenders i.e., the petitioner and respondents 5 to 7 at the negotiated rates as indicated in the enclosure upto the estimated quantity of 350 KMs.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Telecom District Manager, Nalgonda, invited tenders in his proceedings No.Zl/UG cables/98-99/100 dated 30-3-1999 in sealed covers on behalf of the President of India for digging trenches, laying of under ground cables/recovery of cables and reinstatement works in Nalgonda District. The approximate work involved for digging and laying underground cables for all types of cables will be 500 KMs. The cost of the tender schedule is Rs.520/- and 17 contractors purchased tender schedules but only 7 contractors submitted the sealed covers within prescribed time i.e., by 21-4-1999 and the 4th respondent opened the same on 21-4-1999. The information furnished by the 7 contractors in their bids has been sent to the Tender Evaluation -Committee for evaluation and the petitioner’s bid is the lowest among all and while he was expecting that his bid would be accepted, the impugned letter has been communicated which has been questioned in this Writ Petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that negotiations were held on 11-5-1999 and only 4 contractors including the petitioner attended for negotiations and the petitioner reduced the
rate from Rs.11.99 per running meter to Rs.10-50 per running meter in the said negotiation and the Committee wanted to split the said work and proposed to give the work to all contractors, who have attended the negotiations but the petitioner protested for the same and did not agree to split the work and he has submitted a consent letter dated 11-5-1999 subject to condition that the entire work should be awarded to him.
5. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the Tender Evaluation Committee has no jurisdiction to split up the work and grant the same for more than one contractor at the lowest rates agreed in the negotiations and the action of the respondents is against the principle decided in the case reported in Association Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation, 1948 (1) KB = 1947 (2) All.E.R. and Tula Cellar v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11.
6. Respondents 1 to 5 and 7th
respondent filed their counters contending that as per Clause 21 of tender schedule, the decision of the General Manager-Telecom, Warangal area, which is impugned letter dated 1-6-1999 is not under any obligation nor binding on him to accept the lowest tender. As per Clause 21 Appendix-A of tender schedule, the panel of successful tenderers agreed to the rates finalised would be prepared and those successful tenderers have to carry out the cable laying work in the entire district. Having regard to the urgency of the work, negotiations were called for and four tenderers, who have participated in the negotiations, were fixed up for awarding the works on the lowest agreed rates.
7. The work in question is not the lump sum contract but it is only a rate contract. None of the clauses provide or stipulate the fixed quantum of the work to be executed by a particular contractor. Only an approximate work for digging and laying
underground cables is mentioned to be executed by the tenderers on the lowest accepted rates in the Telecom Nalgonda District.
8. As per Clause 11(a), the Telecom District Manager, Nalgonda, reserves right to reject any or all tenderers received without assigning any reasons and will not be bound to accept lone tender. As per Clause 21 of the said tender schedule stipulates that once the rates are finalised item wise, Tender Evaluation Committee will conduct negotiations with all the “tenderers ” to select a panel of “successful tenders'”, who will agree to do at the rates finalised itemwise. A decision of the General Manager, Telecom, Hanamkonda or Telecom District Manager, Nalgonda is final in deciding the rates itemwise and the actual number of the successful tenderers for carrying out the cable work in the entire district.
9. In all other relevant clauses of the tender schedule it is specifically stated the words that the “successful tenderers” for fulfilling the conditions and other requirements clearly show that it is the panel of the “successful tenderers” fixed by the respondents for execution of the work but not by a single tenderer.
10. If the petitioner is not inclined to accept a portion of the work in question, there cannot be any objection for him to refuse to execute the part of the work. As matter of fact, no award of the contract has been given to any of the tenderers. Unless the contract is awarded, agreement is executed, the petitioner cannot get any right to compel the respondents to award the entire work as desired by him. There is no assurance or any stipulation in any of the conditions that the entire work will be awarded to the lone lowest tenderer.
11. As per the guidelines stipulated by the Department in Section 2 relating to
procurement of tender procedure in Clause 15(1) there can be distribution of quantities to multiple venders. Some times, if it is necessary to sustain multiple suppliers or venders for distribution of quantities and at such times, the distribution of tender quantity can be made among the multiple contractors. Any kind of assurance has ever been given to the petitioner either in the tender schedule or in any of the conditions relating to the work in question and the petitioner has no vested right to demand the respondents to award entire work to him. It is also pertinent to note that Clause 17 states that each successful tenderer should complete individually a minimum cable work of 15 KMs. per month. Failure will cause the cancellation of the work order and the Telecom District Manager, Nalgonda, reserves the right to issue the work orders to other successful tenderers. As stated by the official respondents, they have decided as a policy decision to get the execution of the work at the minimum rates within the shortest time through the multiple contractors. I am of the considered view that the action of the respondents to get the work done by 4 individual contractors in a short period cannot be found fault-with. It is for the Department to get the work executed within a minimum period by the lowest rates. Lone contractor cannot execute the entire work within the stipulated period or the minimum period. If 4 tenderers are awarded, the entire work can be executed within shortest period. If any of the contractor fails to execute the given work within the stipulated time, it is always open for the Department to cancel that work and entrust the same to the other contractor, who has completed the work as expected by the Department. If the petitioner is more successful in executing the work and if any of the other contractors fail to execute the work in a given time, the petitioner or any other able contractor may get that work also.
12. The cases relied upon by the petitioner are of no help as the facts and the
scheme of work, type and nature is different from that of the instant case. I am of the considered view that the decision of the official respondents is bona fide and there is no arbitrariness. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner for awarding the work as per the petitioner’s perceptions but in the larger interest, the action taken by the respondents is fair and reasonable and in the interest of the Department and public to get the work executed at the lowest agreed rates by the 4 tenderers within the minimum period so that the entire public will be benefited by execution of the work within the shortest time. The lone contractor cannot execute the whole of the work within two or three months. If it is given to 4 contractors, it will be possible to complete the same within the said period in which case public will get immediate benefit of getting the telephone facilities. Therefore, in the interest of the public and in view of the Scheme, the action of the respondents cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The action of the respondents is bona fide and satisfies the requirement of the non-arbitrariness and withstand the judicial scrutiny.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.