ORDER
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the order passed by the first respondent Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, A. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad rejecting the petitioner’s tender and accepting the one submitted by the second respondent, as illegal, null and void.
2. Tenders were invited bythe first respondent from Transport Contractors for transport of foodgrains, pulses etc. from various places in the Karimnagar District within the same District or outside the District. The petitioner as also five others including the second respondent submitted the tenders in the form and manner indicated in the tender notice dated 11-1-1984.
3. The petitioner quoted the rates for the transportation of foodgrains, pulses etc. per metric tonne per Kilometre as mentioned below in the relevant column of the tender form:
(see table on next page)
Where the total distance Rate in Rate in words
Falls between figures
i) 1 and 100 Kms. Rs. 0-65 Rupees nil and Paise sixty five only.
ii) 101 and 300 Kms. Rs. 0-53 Rupees nil and Paise fifty three only.
iii) 301 and 400 Kms. Rs. 0-45 Rupees nil and Paise forty five only.
iv) 401 and above Kms. Rs. 0-40 Rupees nil and Paise forty only.
3. Similarly the second respondent quoted the rates as follows :
Where the total distance Rate in Rate in words
Falls between figures
i) 1 and 100 Kms. 0-63 Sixty three paise
ii) 101 and 300 Kms. 0-54 Fifty four paise.
iii) 301 and 400 Kms. 0-45 Forty five paise.
iv) 401 and above Kms. 0-45 Forty five paise.
4. The first respondent considered the tenders of all the six tenderers and accepted the tender of the second respondent in preference to the petitioner and others. The petitioner alleged that, taking into consideration the rates quoted by him for various distances of four categories mentioned in the tender form as shown above work out to be four paise less per Kilometre than the second respondent and as such the order of acceptance of the tender of the second respondent passed by the first respondent is illegal, null and void.
5. The first contention raised by Shri K. Pratap Reddy, on behalf of the petitioner is that the acceptance by the first respondent of the tender submitted by the second respondent in spite of the total rates quoted by the second respondent being higher than of the petitioner is in contravention of the terms and conditions contained in the form of tender. Secondly it is contended that the rejection of the tender of the petitioner offends against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and amounts to illegal discrimination contrary to Art. 14 of the Constitution.
6. The case of the petitioner is that he quoted lowest rate for the two slabs as compared to the rates quoted by the second respondent, equal in one slab and that taking into consideration all the ranges he quoted four paise less per Kilometre than the second respondent. Whereas the case of the first respondent is that as per the requirement plan prepared up to November, 1983 for the District of Karimnagar, 7000 M. Ts. Of foodgrains are planned to be transported within the distance of 100 Kms. Only within the District. The transport outside the District arises only in case there is a procurement over and above the requirement of the District. As at present the procurement is being done for consumption within the Karimnagar District itself, the question of moving the procured rice outside the District does not arise. Therefore, in deciding as to which is the lowest tender the first respondent has taken into account only the rates quoted by the tenderers for slab No. 1 only. There was, therefore, no need at all to consider the rates quoted for other slabs. On so considering, the rates quoted by second respondent were found to be lower than that quoted by the petitioner and are beneficial and less expensive for the Corporation. Therefore, the tender of the second respondent being the lowest has been accepted. The allegation that the petitioner quoted four paise less per Kilometre than the second respondent is misleading and not correct. The question of taking into consideration the rates quoted for all ranges does not arise at all in deciding the lowest rate because the payment of charges for each trip depends upon the total distance from the loading point to unloading point and the rate applicable will be a flat rate as per the relevant slab. Clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the Tender notice provides a reservation by the corporation of the right to award the contract in full or in part to one or several parties. Further the said clause itself states that the decision of the Vice-Chairman and managing director in the finalisation of tenders is final and binding on the tenderers. According to the first respondent there is no possibility in the present pattern for applying the rates quoted by the tenderers for slabs 2 to 4 as the transportation has to be undertaken by the successful tenderer only within the District of Karimnagar within a distance of 100 Kms. Under slab No. 1. The Corporation has considered the rates in the various slabs in the light of the probable distance from one place to another in a majority of trips and decided that the rate quoted for slab No. 1 is applicable to most of the trips. As the rate for the said slab quoted by the second respondent is lowest, his tender has been accepted in preference to that of the petitioner and others.
7. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case I am not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he order passed by the first respondent accepting the tender of the second respondent is arbitrary. I do not think that it is a sound exercise of discretion on my part to decide the decision of the first respondent and void the contract. Clause 12 of the tender notice clearly lays down that the Corporation reserves the right to award the contract in full or in part to one or several parties and that the decision of the Vice-Chairman and managing director in finalisation of the tenders is final and binding on the tenderers. In the present case the first respondent has accepted the tender of the second respondent in view of the procurement plan prepared up to November, 1983 for the District of Karimnagar according to which 7000 M. Ts. Of foodgrains are planned to be transported within the distance of 100 Kms. Only within the district, and the transport outside the District arises only in case there is procurement over and above the requirement of the District. The first respondent in his affidavit has categorically stated that the procurement was being done for consumption within the District itself for the present and as such the question of moving the procured rice outside the District does not arise. When most of the activity of transportation in the present case is restricted only in the District of Karimnagar within a distance of 100 Kms. The application of the rates under slabs 2 to 4 does not arise. Under slab No. 1 the petitioner has quoted the rate at 65 paise where the total distance falls between 1 and 100 Kms. And for the same distance the second respondent has quoted 63 paise. In view of the decision of the first respondent to restrict the transportation activity within the distance of 100 Kms only within Karimnagar District the rates quoted by the second respondent will be lower than what the petitioner has quoted. In the circumstances the order passed by the first respondent accepting the tender of the second respondent is just and legal and it is neither illegal nor discriminatory or against the conditions of the tender Notice.
8. For these reasons I do not find any merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the acceptance by the first respondent of the tender submitted by the second respondent is in contravention of the terms and conditions in the form of the tender.
9. As regards the second contention that the rejection of the tender of the petitioner offends against the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and amounts to illegal discrimination
