ADANI PORTS AND SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. Vs. THE VISHAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Adani Ports And Special Economic Zone Ltd.
The Vishakhapatnam Port Trust
Click here to view full judgement.
(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.
(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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.