THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26317 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a transport contractor. He was awarded contract for transport of food-grains from Central Warehouse, Tadepalligudem to various places and it expired on 16.12.2009, after extension. The first respondent issued tender notice, dated 17.09.2009, inviting sealed tenders for the same work. One of the conditions incorporated in the notification is that a tenderer must have EPF Registration code. The petitioner states that he did not have EPF Registration code, but, has applied for it on 01.09.2009 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajahmundry. The petitioner and others submitted the tenders. The technical bids were opened on 06.10.2009 and the petitioner was advised to attend the office of the first respondent on 26.10.2009 for the purpose of opening the price bids. The price bids were opened, and the petitioner states that the respondents were satisfied with the rates quoted by him. Through the letter, dated 06.11.2009, the first respondent informed the petitioner that the competent authority has decided to scrap the further proceedings in pursuance of the tender notice, dated 17.09.2009. On the next day, i.e., on 07.11.2009, fresh notification was issued slightly modifying the condition as to possession of the EPF Registration code. The petitioner challenges the action of the respondents in scrapping the tender process in pursuance of the notice, dated 17.09.2009 and prays a direction to the respondents to accept his tender. According to the petitioner, it would be sufficient if the application for registration of EPF code was filed and despite the same, the tender process was scapped and the tender notice, dated 17.09.2009 was given up without any basis. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating, inter alia, that existence of EPF code number in the name of the tenderer is a condition precedent, and since the petitioner did not possess such EPF registration code, there was no alternative except to scrap the process. Heard Smt S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is in the business of handling and transportation of food-grains for the past 25 years. Even as of now, he has a contract with the respondents. In the notification issued on 17.09.2009, inviting the tenders, Condition No.11 insists on filing of a copy of EPF registration procured/applied along with Code number. The petitioner states that he did not hold EPF registration code. He made an application to the authority concerned. The application is said to be under process. The petitioner and about 4 or 5 others submitted the tenders. On behalf of the respondents, it is stated that neither the petitioner, who emerged as the highest bidder, nor others satisfied the said condition and in that view of the matter, the tender process was scrapped. In the subsequent tender notice, dated 07.11.2009, Condition No.11 was slightly modified. It reads “A copy of EPF registration along with Code number.” The alternative, of an application having been made for the EPF registration code was omitted. The petitioner, no doubt, submitted tender in response to the second tender notice, i.e., dated 07.11.2009. However, his grievance is common in respect of both the notifications as regards the existence of EPF Registration code number. The EPF registration Code number is being insisted only to facilitate proper remittance of the provident fund contribution. The respondents did not find any difficulty as regards the working of the petitioner for the past several years. The condition incorporated in the tender notice, dated 17.09.2009, did not insist that the tenderer must invariably hold the EPF Registration code, and the proof of submission of application for such registration was treated as adequate. On 06.11.2009 respondents addressed letter to the petitioner informing that the tender process was scrapped, no reasons are mentioned. It is, no doubt, true that it is the prerogative of the respondents to discontinue the tender process. However, on account of the petitioner emerging as the successful tenderer, a semblence of right accrues to him, which can be taken away only for valid reasons. In the subsequent tender notice, dated 07.11.2009, the condition was a bit stringent namely nothing short of registration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court a copy of proceedings, dated 19.12.2009, issued by the respondents, to which, a note was added after the conditions, which reads as under: - “The successful tenderer must produce EPF Registration Number within one month from the date of award of contract.” Though it is said to be in relation to a contract for a limited period, there is no reason why the same be not adopted for regular contracts also, particularly when there is ambiguity as to the scope of the condition. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the respondents shall process the tender of the petitioner without insisting on the existence of EPF Registration code. It is further directed that in the event of the petitioner emerging as successful bidder, he shall be under obligation to furnish the EPF Registration code within one month from the date of execution of the agreement. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 23rd December 2009 dr