Decided on March 03,2022

Adani Ports And Special Economic Zone Ltd. Appellant
The Vishakhapatnam Port Trust Respondents


- (1.) With the consent of all the learned senior counsels and the learned standing counsel for the respondentVisakhapatnam Port Trust the Writ Petition itself is heard. The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in disqualifying the petitioner from participating further in tender No.IM&EE/MOF/Mech-WQ-7&8/2021, dtd. 4/10/2021 as illegal, violative of principles of natural justice etc. This Court has heard Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri P. Raghuram, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondentVisakhapatnam Port Trust. PETITIONER'S CASE:
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Satya Prasad points out that the petitioner is a company which wanted to participate in a tender bearing No.IM&EE/MOF/Mech-WQ7&8/2021, for mechanization of WQ 7 & WQ 8 Berths. The said tender involved a multi stage process. The first stage was the qualification stage (RFQ stage). The bidders who qualified at this stage were entitled to participate in the second stage, which is the bidding stage (RFP). The petitioner was disqualified at the first stage itself on the ground that they did not disclose certain important material facts. Learned senior counsel points out that this decision of disqualifying the petitioner is not communicated to the petitioner, and that after a caveat was filed and a notice of caveat was served on the petitioner, they realized the fact that they were disqualified. Learned senior counsel submits that the procedure adopted by respondent Visakhapatnam Port Trust is totally wrong. It is submitted that the ground on which the petitioner was disqualified is also not legally and factually tenable. Hence, he prayed for an appropriate order.
(3.) Learned senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to clause 2.2.2 of the tender conditions which describe the technical, financial and the O&M experience of the bidder. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner has fulfilled and met all the stipulations of Clause 2.2.2. Learned counsel submits that an entity called AVCTPL is a 100% subsidiary of the petitioner. The rejection of the petitioner's present bid by VPT was on the ground that the earlier contract between the said AVCTPL and VPT was terminated and this fact was not disclosed. Learned counsel submits that the caveat petition filed revealed (in paragraph 4 and 6) that Clause 2.2.8 of the bid condition was not fulfilled in the present case. Learned senior counsel argues that clause 2.2.8 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as AVCTPL has terminated the contract and not vice versa. Relying upon paragraphs 9 to 11 of the writ affidavit, senior counsel argues that it is the AVCTPL which terminated the agreement and not VPT.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.