Telangana High Court
The Gagana Fish Seed Farm vs The State Of Telangana on 11 September, 2023
Author: Chillakur Sumalatha
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION No.25163 of 2023
ORDER:
Heard Smt R.Annapurna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. P.Sumalatha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries, who is representing all the respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking an order in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.2 i.e., District Purchase Committee, Suryapet in considering the bid of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct respondent No.2 to award the tender in favour of the petitioner.
3. Making her submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a tender notification vide notification No.192/C/2023 was issued for supply of fish seed for the year 2023-2024. The petitioner, who is fully eligible and qualified as per the tender notification, has participated in the bid and succeeded. On 29.8.2023, the petitioner received information from respondent No.2 that he is required to participate in the negotiations which is scheduled on 2 Dr CSL, J W.P.No.25163 of 2023 30.8.2023. As the petitioner, due to his pre-occupation, could not attend the meeting of negotiations personally, he had sent his authorized representative to attend. However, respondent No.2 did not allow the authorized representative of the petitioner to attend the meeting. On that, the petitioner rushed and met the District Purchase Committee Officer- cum-Additional Collector, Suryapet District at 2.00 pm on the same day and requested him to permit him to participate in the negotiations. However, the Additional Collector informed that the meeting is completed. Learned counsel states that now steps are being taken to allot tender in favour of L2 and L3. Learned counsel states that though the petitioner gave a representation to the Commissioner of Fisheries and the Commissioner of Fisheries also requested the District Collector, Suryapet District, to look into the issue, there is no positive response and thus, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel further states that in all other Districts, authorized representatives were permitted to attend the meeting, but respondent No.2, for the reasons best known, did not allow. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the letter addressed by the Commissioner of Fisheries 3 Dr CSL, J W.P.No.25163 of 2023 vide D.O.Letter No.CF-C/2/2/2023-DDIND, dated 01.9.2023, to the District Collector, Suryapet. In the said letter, there is a clear mention that the scheduled meeting was informed to the petitioner late night and hence, he could not attend personally. Also, there is a mention that the authorized representative is generally considered to participate in the meeting in all the Districts to avoid further legal complications.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Fisheries states that on 29.8.2023 at 8.04 pm information was sent through Whatsapp to the petitioner to attend the meeting which is scheduled on 30.8.2023 at 10.30 am. However, as the petitioner could not personally attend, the present situation arose.
5. No reason is stated as to why the authorized representative of the petitioner was not permitted to attend the meeting. That apart, what made respondent No.2 to give information late night to the petitioner directing him to attend the meeting on the very next date is not known. The inconvenience and pre-occupation of the petitioner is not taken into consideration. Further, this Court is not 4 Dr CSL, J W.P.No.25163 of 2023 enlightened about the difference, if any, which makes on the petitioner personally attending the meeting and his authorized representative attending the meeting. This Court is of the view that it makes no difference. Therefore, respondent No.2 ought to have permitted the authorized representative of the petitioner to attend the meeting. Further, there is every requirement to issue notice at least three days in advance so that the petitioner would have taken steps to attend the meeting personally if there is any such requirement. All these aspects disfavor the respondents.
6. Further, as the petitioner cannot be found fault and as it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had not succeeded in the bid, this Court is of the view that there is every requirement to direct respondent No.2 to convene a meeting afresh for negotiations with the petitioner.
7. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 i.e., District Purchase Committee, Suryapet, is directed to convene a meeting for negotiations, intimate the petitioner about the date of meeting at least three days in advance and thereafter, to proceed further. Without serving of such notice, 5 Dr CSL, J W.P.No.25163 of 2023 no other bidder be selected. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 11.9.2023 Note:
Issue CC in two days. B/o dr