The single judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that being the public authority, the Corporation should be more careful and cautious enough while issuing tender notification and entering into an agreement with the successful bidder.
Furthermore, it is also well-settled principle of law that the tendering authority i.e. Corporation cannot alter the tender conditions in the middle of the tender process.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner is a private transport operator. Respondent no. 2 issued a tender notification regarding hiring private buses under “Hire Scheme” and invited applications from private entrepreneurs/operators for supply on the identified routes. Thereafter, the Petitioner also submitted his application as per the route length per single was 7.5 Kms and for six singles it is 392 Kms and floor rate is Rs.16.81 Ps per kilometer and the petitioner was declared eligible for allotment of the route applied for. Furthermore, the A.P.S.R.T.C by considering the representation of the Hire Bus Owners Welfare Association, extends the agreements of the hire buses. The Petitioner also entered into a supplementary agreement with the Corporation by an amendment and at last, entered into a year agreement with the 4th respondent. After that, the proceedings were initiated by which it was informed that given the survey conducted by the Committee consisting of the respondent – Depot Manager and Staff Members, it was found that the distance of kilometers between Jammalamadugu Tadipathri (Via Kolimigundia) is not correct, and the 8th Respondent issued an impugned order in which the Petitioner was ordered to recover an amount of Rs.2,92,127/- and accordingly, the 8th Respondent recovered that amount. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed in order to refund the amount, which was already deducted from the Hire Charges.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the proceedings were initiated in which it was informed that in view of the survey conducted by the Committee consisting of the respondent – Depot Manager and Staff Members, it was found that the distance of kilometers between Jammalamadugu Tadipathri (Via Kolimigundia) is not correct, as notified in the allotment letter and as entered in the agreement, but on ground, it is only 361 Kms. The amount recovered from the bills of the Petitioner since 2022 retrospectively from the year 2013 to 2023 is contrary to settled principles of law. It was furthermore submitted that administrative proceedings were initiated without following the principles of natural justice
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondent submitted that the survey was conducted and recovered the excess amount which was paid by the respondent corporation to the petitioner and it is only in compliance with the tender conditions. It was furthermore submitted that the claim of the Petitioner is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the survey was conducted after the elapse of 8 years from the date of the agreement and the Respondents failed to clarify whether due to change of either typographical change or any other change, as envisaged under Condition of the Tender Notification and the distance of the route was reduced.
The court furthermore observed that a well-established legal principle states that the respondent Corporation, as the public body, must exercise greater care and caution when notifying the tender and negotiating a contract with the successful bidder. It well settled that the Corporation, as the tendering authority, cannot change the terms of the tender in the middle of the process.
The court noted that any executive orders are made applicable from the date on which it was issued and they shall have prospective effect, but not retrospective effect.
Based on these considerations, the court declared the proceedings to be illegal and arbitrary. The court directed the Respondents to refund the amount and allowed the Respondents to recover the amount from 15.11.2021 to 02.11.2022 as per the hire rates agreed between them.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the writ petition in part.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkasteswarlu Nimmagadda
Case No.: WRIT PETITION Nos. 11215, 11273, 11274 & 11275 OF 2023