@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Hon''ble Mr Justice L. Narasimha Reddy
1. The A.P. State Warehousing Corporation, the 2nd respondent herein issued a tender notice dated 17-09-2010, inviting tenders for construction of godowns of different capacities, at 14 places in the State, for storage requirements of Food Corporation of India (FCI), the 3rd respondent herein. Godown capacity of 40,000 metric tonnes (MTS) was notified at Gudivada in Krishna District. The petitioner and another agency submitted their tenders. The evaluation is at two stages, viz., technical bid and price bid. The petitioner approached this Court on several occasions for consideration of its technical bid, and opening of the price bid. At the hearing of the writ petition, the 3rd respondent brought to the notice of this Court that the proposal to construct godowns in different States for the benefit of FCI were cancelled through proceedings dated 09-12-2011. For the State of Andhra Pradesh, the cancellation accounted for the capacity of 1,05,000/- MTS. The proposal to construct a godown at Gudivada was also included in it. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings.
2. Petitioner contends that though reference is made to a letter dated 27-07-2010, issued by the Government of India, and the minutes of the meeting of the High Level Committee, on 08-09-2011, in the impugned proceedings, a perusal of the said letter and the minutes discloses that no mention was made to cancellation of the proposals in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is also pleaded that the tender notice dated 17-09-2010 was for godowns with capacity of 4,55,000 MTS, and cancellation of the facility in respect of 1,05,000 MTS is arbitrary and discriminatory Other grounds are also urged.
3. On behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, separate counter-affidavits are filed. According to them, no right has accrued to the petitioner on account of submission of tender, and the proposal to construct godowns at Gudivada had to be withdrawn, on account of certain administrative reasons.
4. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central Government, Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri Dentu Srinivas, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
5. The FCI needs godowns of vast capacity for storage of food- grains across the country. It appears that the storage capacity, meaning thereby, the construction of godowns, that was earmarked for the States of Punjab and Haryana, was transferred to other States, including the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd respondent has entrusted the process of inviting tenders for construction of godowns, etc., to the respective State Warehousing Corporations. It is in this process, that the 2nd respondent issued tender notice dated 17-09-2010, for construction of godowns at various places, including Gudivada. The petitioner and another agency submitted their tenders. Be it, in the context of insisting the acceptance of the tender of the petitioner, or taking objection to the evaluation of the tender of the other agency, the petitioner has filed three writ petitions. When those writ petitions were being heard, the impugned memo came to be issued.
6. The impugned memo is to the effect that the storage capacity, aggregating to 35 lakh MTS, that was transferred and allotted to 7 States, including State of Andhra Pradesh; was partly cancelled to the extent of 14,95,500 MTS. The share of Andhra Pradesh in this regard is 1,05,000 MTS. Since the tender for construction of godowns at Gudivada was not accepted yet, the impugned memo covered the capacity, earmarked for that place.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an endeavour to impress upon this Court, that there did not exist any basis for the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned memo, particularly in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is too difficult to accept the contention. It is well-settled that even where a tender of a citizen is accepted by the State, or its instrumentalities, he or she does not derive any right, till a concluded contract emerges as a result of the tendering process. In the instant case, though a tender notice was issued, it has just progressed to the stage of examination of technical bids. The price bid was not opened yet, much less the petitioner was declared as a successful tenderer. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment, much less its fundamental or legal rights are effected.
8. The attention of this Court is drawn to the proceedings that are mentioned in the impugned memo, to buttress the plea that no decision was taken, either by the High Level Committee, or by the 1st respondent, to cancel the godown capacity, allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh. It may be true that reference is made to the letter addressed by the Government of India, dated 27-07-2010, and the minutes of the meeting of the High Level Committee, dated 08-09-2011, in the impugned memo. Still, this Court cannot test the impugned memo on the touchstone of those two proceedings alone. Being an agency vested with the power and discretion to construct godowns, or to withdraw the proposals, the 3rd respondent has every right to regulate its affairs.
9. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority to decide, whether there is any necessity to construct a godown, at a particular place. Even if the proposal is mooted to construct godowns at a particular place, the 3rd respondent can certainly drop the proposal, if it finds that the same is not feasible. The only rider is that, such withdrawal must take place before any legal rights accrue to any citizen, or they have changed their positions to their detriment on any express or implied representation or assurance by the respondents 2 and 3. Except that a tender notice was issued and the proceedings were dropped, half-way-through, no prejudice is meted out, either to the petitioner, or to any other person.
10. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that, in case the respondents propose to construct godowns at Gudivada, the petitioner shall be entitled to submit its tender and participate in the process. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
