APHC010633802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32774/2025 Between: Sri Sai Lakshmi Constructions And Company ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C JHANSI RANI 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.32774 of 2025 The Court made the following ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: <…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the tender evaluation process adopted by the respondent Nos.2 to 4, in respect of protection works of Sri Narasimharaya Sagar Project (Gorakallu Balancing Reservoir), Gorakallu Village, Panyam mandal, Nandyala District, under Phase-I, vide Tender Notice bearing No. 2/2025- 2026, Dt. 11.10.2025 and proposing to allot the tender in favour of the JV (M/s. BlIPL- HSC (JV)) comprising of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein, contrary to the memo No.ICD01/3984/2025/Proj.lll, Dt. 14.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.1, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and also contrary to the tender conditions referred to above and in violation of rights guaranteed under Articles 14,19 and 21 of constitution of India and in violation of Principals of Natural Justice and pass…= 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows: a. The petitioner firm is a special class registered contractors with Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Registration No.COT/Andhra Pradesh/SP/768/2021 valid up to 21.05.2026. The respondent No.4 issued tender notice bearing No.2/2025-26, dated 11.10.2025 in respect of <protection works of Sri Narasimharaya Sagar Project (Gorakallu Balancing Reservoir), Gorakallu Village, Panyam Mandal, Nandyala District, under phase-I=. Estimated value of the contract is Rs.40,03,24,955/-. The petitioner firm submitted its bid on 30.10.2025 with regard to the tender. The respondents No.5 and 6 filed a common bid as a joint venture. 3 W.P.No.32774 of 2025 b. The respondent No.4 opened the technical bid on 31.10.2025 and financial bid on 05.11.2025 and declared that the joint venture comprising respondents No.5 and 6 is the lowest bidder. Thereupon, the petitioner firm verified the documents uploaded by the joint venture and realised that they did not furnish information regarding the on-hand works executed by them and bid capacity particulars along with tender uploaded by the respondent No.5. c. The petitioner firm contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.174, dated 01.09.2008 of CAD (PW-Reforms) Department, the date filled by the bidder in the online form shall be sole criteria for the evaluation of responsiveness and assessing the bid capacity and any other supplemental date shall not be accepted by the tender capacity authorities for the evaluation. Regarding the same, the petitioner firm submitted representations on 10.11.2025 and 14.11.2025 to the respondent No.1 regarding non-compliance of tender conditions by the respondents No.5 and 6. As there is no action initiated by the official respondents, this writ petition is filed. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, on 31.12.2025, this Court passed the following Order: <4th respondent has filed counter affidavit duly stating that because of the pendency of the present Writ Petition they could not finalise the tenders. As such, it is clarified that the pendency of the Writ Petition may not come in the way of the 2nd respondent to finalise the tenders in either way. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent is directed to pass final orders in terms of the terms and conditions of the tender notification by the next date of hearing.= 4 W.P.No.32774 of 2025 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 5. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on the last occasion i.e., on 31.12.2025, the respondents have finalised the tenders in favour of the unofficial respondents No.5 and 6 vide Proc.No.COT/EE/DEE1/T3/Protection work GBR/2025, dated 06.01.2026. The proceedings were made part of record through I.A.No.1 of 2026 filed by the petitioner. In view of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed another petition in I.A.No.2 of 2026 challenging the said proceedings dated 06.01.2026, wherein the tender was finalized in favour of the respondents No.5 and 6 on the sole ground that allotting the tenders to the respondents No.5 and 6 by the respondent No.2 is contrary to his own findings dated 24.11.2025 and also in violation of the specific conditions of tender document dated 11.10.2025 and as well as the directions issued by the respondent No.1 to the other respondents vide memo dated 14.11.2025. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation also filed additional counter affidavit in the present case and brought to the notice of this Court that the scrutiny note of tenders through which the respondents No.5 and 6 tender has been validated by the respondent No.2 while calculating the pay capacity it has been specifically observed that the respondent No.5 has (>B? value) of Rs29.61 Crore. But, whereas the respondent No.6 has not submitted any documents to that extent and as such the bid capacity with regard to the respondent No.6 was shown as nill but combined bid capacity of 5 W.P.No.32774 of 2025 the respondents No.5 and 6 exceeds the estimated contract value, hence they have fulfilled the requirement. He further stated that once a joint venture has been registered by both the respondents No.5 and 6 there is no necessity for the respondent No.6 to furnish >B? value documents to prove his subsequent on going works for next 24 months, and the same has been further clarified in note portion which reads as follows: <As per Clause 3.2(F), the Bid Capacity of each JV member shall be aggregated to assess the combined eligibility. The JV partner M/s Hima Sai Constructions has not furnished the value of existing commitments and ongoing works (B-value). Therefore, the B-value of this partner is treated as Nil for evaluation purposes.= 7. Clause 3.2 deals with Joint Venture and consortium, the relevant portion of which reads as under: < Tenders from Joint Ventures are acceptable Joint venture/ consortium A. The intending bidder can be individual/ Joint venture/ consortium upto 3 (three) members/ Consortium upto 3 (Three members) and must be the one registered as partnership firm in India with names of all the partners find place in the Registrar of Firms. If not Registered by the time of bid submission, they all must give a written undertaking as the Joint Venture/ consortium/ consortium upto 3 members/ partners, all from Indian nationality and none from abroad, that they shall cause register their partnership within three months and also must furnish under the Indian Partnership Act, with the Registrar of Firms all the members including the lead member names with address, e-mail etc., and such proof must be submitted along with the firm registration. Among them, the lead member’s share shall be at least 51% and the other members shall also have the remaining to represent 100% and of each other at least 20% share of financial equity of the contribution. 6 W.P.No.32774 of 2025 The eligibility criterion is from the combined resources of JOINT VENTURE/ CONSORTIUM members/ partners in respect of both technical and financial aspects. All the JOINT VENTURE/ CONSORTIUM members/ partners shall be responsible for the contract work completion and for defect liabilities, operation and maintenance and for further three months jointly and severally and they shall undertake to the same effect so that they cannot terminate the Joint venture/ consortium of partnership meantime." 8. As per the said clause, it can be understood that intending bidder can be individual/joint venture/consortium up 3 members and among them, lead member?s share shall be at least 51% and the other members shall also have the remaining to represent 100% and of each other at least 20% share of financial equity of the contribution and the eligibility criterion is from the combined resources of Joint Venture/Consortium members/partners in respect of both technical and financial aspects. It can also be noted that all the Joint Venture/Consortium members/ partners shall be responsible for the contract work completion and for defect liabilities, operation and maintenance. 9. Considering Clause 3.2, this Court is of the view that the said condition has been included so that both the members have the eligibility as well as experience and efficiency for completion of the tender finalised in their favour so that both the members of the joint venture can successfully complete the works allotted to them but in the present case admittedly respondent No.6 has not furnished the value of the existing contracts and ongoing works >B? value and when that being so, it cannot be treated as if the respondent No.6 has fulfilled his requirement as under Clause 3.2. In view of the same, the 7 W.P.No.32774 of 2025 proceedings dated 06.01.2026 issued by the respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside. 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the proceeding vide Proc.No.COT/EE/DEE1/T3/Protection work GBR/2025, dated 06.01.2026, issued by the respondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration on the objections raised by the petitioner herein before finalizing the tenders. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dt.08.01.2026 NSM 8 W.P.No.32774 of 2025 279 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 32774/2025 Dt.08.01.2026 NSM