THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5469 OF 2010 DATED: 22 .06.2010 Between : M. Sambasiva Rao … Petitioner And 1. The Joint Collector, Vijayawda Camp Office, Near PWD ground, Vijayawada, Krishna district And 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5469 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 2.3.2010 whereunder the petitioner was informed that he was not qualified for consideration for appointment as Stage-II Contractor for transportation of food grains at Gannavaram MLS Point as arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, are as under: The A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited issued a tender notification dated 30.01.2010 inviting sealed tenders for appointment of Stage-II Transport Contractors for transportation of food grains from various MLS Points specified therein for the year 2010- 2011. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner herein submitted his sealed tender for Gannavaram MLS Point. On 16.02.2010 the tenders were opened and the price quoted by the petitioner was found to be the lowest. Thereafter the petitioner submitted the necessary documents furnishing the details of the vehicles for transportation of the food grains which included a letter of undertaking from one Ch. Ramamohana Rao agreeing to provide the vehicles for Stage-II contract works of the petitioner. The petitioner states that he was asked by the 1st respondent to furnish the particulars of his own vehicles within two days and accordingly having purchased two vehicles bearing Nos.AP 37 T 9666 and AP 16 W 9195, the petitioner furnished the particulars to the 1st respondent on 18.2.2010. It is claimed that on being satisfied with the particulars so furnished, the 1st respondent had informed the petitioner that the acceptances letters would be issued shortly. However the impugned letter dated 3.2.2010 was issued by the 1st respondent rejecting the petitioner’s tender on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish the particulars of his own vehicles with a total capacity of minimum 20 MTs as prescribed in the tender notice. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that as the petitioner had complied with all the requirements including possessing two own vehicles of 20 MTs capacity and his quotation being the lowest, the impugned order of rejection is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that as on the date of opening of the tenders i.e., 16.2.2010 the petitioner did not have any vehicles of his own and therefore his tender was rightly rejected. The plea of the petitioner that he was instructed by the 1st respondent to furnish the details of his own vehicles in two days has been specifically denied. It is further stated that all the tenderers were furnished a copy of the tender conditions together with the circular of the Corporation dated 16.1.2010 containing the terms and conditions to be fulfilled by the tenderers and all the tendereres were required to follow the said terms and conditions strictly. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Clause-4 (2) of the Circular dated 16.01.2010 which deals with eligibility criteria provides that the individual/firms/partnerships should own minimum two vehicles or number of vehicles prescribed by the J.C. and EOED with reference to MLS Point-wise allotment and quantum to be moved. It was further made clear under Clause-12 as under: “Under any circumstances the Tenderers should have minimum of two own vehicles with total capacity of minimum 20 MTs. for transportation under Stage II for that particular Mandal / MLS Point. However, the Joint Collectors can prescribe the no. of vehicles to be held by the Stage II Contractors in addition to the minimum vehicles prescribed keeping in view the allotment of MLS Point and timely supply of stocks to F.P. Shops. An affidavit should also be filed by the tenderers stating that they have not declared the same Stage II vehicles for another MLS Point within district or the MLS points of neighbouring districts for obtaining Stage II contract for that particular year. Tender without holding the number vehicles prescribed stands rejected.” It is clear from the above conditions that the tenderers should have minimum two own vehicles for stage-II transportation. The petitioner never challenged the said condition nor it is his case that he was not aware of the said requirement. On 16.2.2010 i.e., the date on which the tenders were opened, the petitioner did not possess two vehicles with total capacity of minimum 20 MTs of his own and admittedly he purchased the vehicles only on 17.02.2010. Thus it is a case where the petitioner failed to comply with the tender conditions and therefore the action of the respondents in rejecting his tender cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. As noticed above, the petitioner’s plea that he was asked by the 1st respondent to furnish the details of his own vehicles in two days has been categorically denied in the counter-affidavit. It is also relevant to note that the entire tender for Gannavaram MLS Point was cancelled and in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the two lowest tenderers including the petitioner did not have vehicles of their own and the 3rd tenderer though owned vehicles his rate was found to be much higher than the other two tederers. It is further stated that the cancellation of the entire tender for Gannavaram MLS Point was informed to all the tenderers on 16.2.2010 itself. It is explained by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned proceedings dated 2.3.2010 were issued in response to the petitioner’s representation dated 2.3.2010 requesting to inform the reasons for rejection of his tender. The record placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents shows that in the statement showing the particulars of MLS Point-wise tenders prepared on 16.02.2010, the names of the petitioner and other tenderer Rangarao who quoted the first lowest and second lowest respectively, were shown as rejected. In the circumstances, the petitioner’s plea that he was asked by the 1st respondent to furnish the details of his own vehicles within two days does not appear to be credible and cannot be accepted. Merely because the petitioner’s bid was the lowest, the respondents cannot be compelled to accept his tender since the petitioner had admittedly failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria. Accordingly, the Writ Petition which is devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 22.06.2010 gbs