IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 4603 of 2005 Between: M/s.Madhu Ads having regd office at Rajahmundry rep.by its Proprietor, M.Madhusudhan Rao, S/o.Suryanarayana Murthy, R/o.Rajahmundry E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Information and public Relations Dept(GAD), A.C.Guards, Hyderabad rep.by its Commissioner. 2 M/s.Sree Shakti Ads, Visakhapatnam, rep.by its Managing partner T.Lalithrendranath, 143/4, M.V.P.Colony, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in authorizing the 2nd respondent to take up the pillar board campaign on Rajiv pallebaata, Indira prabha, rajiv Internet and Rajiv Yuvashakti and other important programmes in all mandals of Andhra Pradesh vide its letter No.17674/Advt.II/2004 dt. -1-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and against Art.14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to call for the tenders for executing the pillar board campaign on Rajiv pallebatta, India, prabha, Rajiv Internet and Rajiv Yuva Shakti and other important programmes in all mandals of Andhra Pradesh and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court at the stage of admission made the following : THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.4603 OF 2005 ORDER : The writ petitioner, who is an outdoor advertiser filed this writ petition questioning the letter of the 1st respondent – Commissioner of Information and Public Relations Department, Government of A.P., dated 5-1-2005, whereunder the 2nd respondent herein was authorized to take up the Pillar Board Campaign on Government Programmes i.e., Rajiv Pallebaata, Indira Prabha, Rajiv Internet and Rajiv Yuvasakti and other important programmes in all mandals of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st respondent has published a Tender Notice dated 3-5-2003 inviting sealed tenders from the experienced eligible outdoor publicity agencies for empanelment with Information and Public Relations Department for a period of one year from the date of empanelment / agreement to place work orders as and when required to carry out the publicity campaign through outdoor media through Pillar Boards in A.P. by display of messages/designs as required from time to time. It is not in dispute that in response to the same the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent along with several other agencies participated. The petitioner claims that the 1st respondent selected five agencies including the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein and all the five agencies were included in the empanelment and were issued work orders to take up outdoor publicity campaign for 19th phase Janmabhoomi Programme. By letter dated 18-06-2003, the petitioner was issued such work order, according to which the work should be completed by 26-06-2003. The petitioner states that they have successfully executed the work without any complaint and the District Public Relations Officer has issued a Certificate that the work has been done satisfactorily. It is alleged that subsequently the 1st respondent by private negotiations has authorised the 2nd respondent to take up the Pillar Board Campaign under the impugned letter for Rajiv Pallebaata, Indira Prabha, Rajiv Internet and Rajiv Yuvasakti and other important programmes in all the mandals for 6000 units at the rate of Rs.2,650/- per unit totaling Rs.1,59,00,000/- for a period of one year. It is stated that the petitioner came to know about the work allotted to the 2nd respondent only from a news-item published in ‘Andhra Jyothi Daily’ dated 3-3- 2005 and 4-3-2005. The said action of the 1st respondent in authorizing the second respondent to take up the work in question under the impugned letter dated 5-1-2005 is under challenge in this writ petition contending inter alia that awarding the said work by private negotiations instead of by public auction is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner alleges that the impugned letter was issued by the 1st respondent only to facilitate to award the work to the person of his choice. It is also alleged that the 2nd respondent has no experience in the field of outdoor advertisement and that the work was allotted in his favour only because he is an influential person. It is contended that there is absolutely no reason for not following the procedure as adopted in the previous years by inviting tenders for awarding the work in question. Hence, this writ petition. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of Information and Public Relations Department stating that a Committee consisting of Senior Officers of Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Accounts Officer were constituted to open the tenders on 9-5- 2003 in pursuance of the tender notification dated 3-5-2003. The said Committee having assessed the tenders received, gave its final recommendations on 16-5- 2003. Out of 14 bidders participated, it was found five agencies had the required qualifications to campaign the Janmabhoomi Programme. Among the said five qualified agencies, the 2nd respondent has quoted the lowest rate of Rs.1,325/- for six months and thus the 2nd respondent was declared as the lowest bidder. However, on a request made by the petitioner and other three other eligible agencies requesting that they may also be allotted work along with the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent keeping in view the nature of the work to be carried out as per the time schedule of Janmabhoomi Programme, thought it fit to allot the work to other qualified agencies also, so that the work can be completed in time. Accordingly, the 1st respondent allotted the work as under : a. The 2nd respondent being the lowest tender and successful bidder – allotted 978 Pillar Boards b) M/s. Varsha Ads, Hyderabad – allotted 452 Pillar Boards c) M/s.Madhu Ads, Rajahmundry-allotted 302 Pillar Boards d) M/s.B.V.Ads, Hyderabad - allotted 377 Pillar Boards e) M/s. Keerthi Ads, Visakhapatnam-allotted 226 Pillar Boards The above allotted Pillar Boards were intended for 19th Phase Janmabhoomi. The 2nd respondent was given priority and he was given more number of Pillar Boards as he was the lowest bidder. It is also stated that the Committee vide proceedings dated 16-05-2003 recommended that the lowest rate to be continued for two years because the next phases of Janmabhoomi were presumed to be commenced on January, 2004 and June, 2004. As the Janmabhoomi Programme was regularly on- going twice yearly, the Committee was of the opinion that the lowest rates may continue for two years rather than calling fresh tenders for every phase of Janmabhoomi. Since the Tender Committee has recommended to continue the lowest rates for two years instead of one year, the 1st respondent has not invited fresh tenders again and issued work order to the 2nd respondent under the impugned work order. The allegation of favouritism has been denied and it is stated that to popularise among Urban and Rural people the innovative programmes like Rajiv Pallebaata, Rajiv Nagarabaata, Rajiv Yuva Shakti, Indira Prabha, Rajiv Internet Village etc started by the new Government, the Pillar Boards Campaign has again been taken up in the beginning of the year 2005 and work order dated 5-1- 2005 was issued at the first phase to the 2nd respondent for one year for 6000 Pillar Boards because he is the lowest bidder. It is also stated that the new innovative schemes are ongoing and there is no time-bound and therefore, this department has utilised the services of the 2nd respondent at the first phase. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent has already completed the work successfully within the time schedule and informed the same to the Department on 21-01-2005. The work completion certificates were received from all 22 District Public Relations Officers after due verification. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit on the same lines and categorically denying the allegations made by the petitioner that the work was allotted to the 2nd respondent illegally and arbitrarily. The allegation that the 1st respondent has colluded with 2nd respondent has also been categorically denied. The allegations made by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is influential and that he had no experience in the advertising field have been denied and it is stated that the 2nd respondent got necessary experience in outdoor advertising work. It is further stated that the work was assigned to him by work order dated 5-1-2005 directing to complete the work by 20-01-2005 and he has completed the work accordingly. It is stated that whereas the petitioner completed the work by 20-01-2005, the present writ petition was filed in the 2nd week of March, 2005 with a mala fide intention and the same is liable to be dismissed. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. As can be seen from the material on record, under the Tender Notice dated 3-5-2003 issued by the 1st respondent, sealed tenders were invited from the experienced eligible outdoor publicity agencies for empanelment with the Department for a period of one year from the date of empanelment or agreement to place work orders as and when required to carryout the publicity campaign through outdoor media through Pillar Boards in A.P. by display of Message or Designs as required from time to time. A Committee consisting of Additional Director (Admn. & MIMS), Joint Director (MR), Deputy Director (Photo) and Assistant Accounts Officer was constituted for finalising the tenders and the said Committee met on 16-5-2003. The material placed before this Court by the learned Government Pleader shows that the said Tender Committee having considered the tenders received, recommended that one M/s. Varsha Ads has quoted the lowest price of Rs.900/- per Pillar Board for 3 months and M/s. Shakti Ads i.e., the 2nd respondent herein has quoted the lowest price of Rs.1,325/- per Pillar Board for six months. The Committee has also recommended the names of five agencies, whose names are shown at serial numbers 1 to 5 in the statement enclosed, as qualified tenderers. So far as the other agencies at Sl.Nos.6 to 12 are concerned, it was observed that they do not have Pillar Boards Media in Districts and that the earnest money deposits may be returned. The names of both the writ petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent herein were included in the said five agencies who were found to be qualified. The Committee has recommended that their names may be considered for issue of work orders applying the lowest rate of Rs.900/- and Rs.1,325/- per Pillar Board for 3 months and 6 months respectively. The material placed before this Court shows that the Tender Committee has also recommended to continue the same lowest rates for two years instead of one year. The specific case of the 1st respondent is that as per the said Recommendations of the Tender Committee, no fresh tenders were invited for the new programmes and the 2nd respondent who was admittedly the lowest bidder was issued the work order to take up the Pillar Board Campaign on Rajiv Pallebaata and etc. Programmes under the impugned proceedings dated 5-1-2005. It is relevant to note that the work was allotted on the lowest rate quoted under the tender notice dated 3-5-2003 i.e., at the rate of Rs.1,325/- per Pillar Board for six months which comes to Rs.2,650/- for one year. In the light of the reasons stated in the counter- affidavit and in the absence of any specific allegation attributing mala fides to the 1st respondent, I do not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is not justified i n authorizing the Pillar Board Campaign to the 2nd respondent under the work order dated 5-1-2005 without inviting fresh tenders. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no reason to hold that the said action is against public interest, since admittedly the work was allotted to the 2nd respondent at the lowest rate quoted under the tender notice dated 3-5-2003. However, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the tenders were invited under the Tender Notice dated 3-5-2003 for empanelment of the publicity agencies and even the Tender Committee in its recommendations dated 16-5-2003 recommended that the five agencies, whose names were shown at Sl.Nos.1 to 5 in the statement enclosed, are qualified tenderers. In the circumstances, the first respondent having decided to continue the lowest rates for two years ought to have distributed the work among all the five qualified tenderers as was done in June, 2003. The explanation offered by the 1st respondent in entrusting the entire work of 6000 Pillar Boards to the 2nd respondent alone merely on the ground that he was the lowest bidder does not appear to be credible and not convincing. The counter-affidavit by the 1st respondent is silent as to why the other qualified agencies were not allotted the work along with the 2nd respondent for the new programmes namely Rajiv Pallebaata and etc. May be that the 2nd respondent was the lowest bidder, but the purport of the tender notice dated 3-5-2003 was to empanel the eligible tenderers and as a matter of fact five qualified bidders were empanelled and they were also allotted the work during the year 2003. Nothing has been placed before this Court to substantiate the plea of the 1st respondent that the work was entrusted to the petitioner and other 3 tenderers in the year 2003 only on a request made by them but not because they were empanelled tenderers. Obviously, the work in 19th phase Janmabhoomi Programme was distributed among all the empanelled tenderers, of course at the lowest rate quoted by the 2nd respondent. Hence, the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent in ignoring the other empanelled tenderers and allotting the work to the 2nd respondent alone under the impugned work order dated 5-1-2005 cannot be held to be for valid reasons. However, the fact remains that the 2nd respondent has already executed the work allotted under the impugned work order dated 5-1-2005. As per the work completion certificates, the entire work was completed in the month of January, 2005 itself, whereas this writ petition was filed on 7-3-2005. The plea of the petitioner that he was not aware of the work entrusted to the 2nd respondent till the same was published in the daily news papers on 3-3-2005 is not at all convincing since the petitioner also claims to be an agency actively participating in the field of outdoor advertisements. That apart, as expressed above, the 1st respondent cannot be found fault with for not inviting fresh tenders and in opting to allot the ongoing works at the lowest rate quoted in response to the tender notice dated 3-5-2003 which is in tune with the recommendations of the Tender Committee. Moreover since the same lowest rates are maintained, it cannot be said that the public interest is affected in any manner. May be that, the petitioner and the other 3 empanelled tenderers were ignored by the 1st respondent, but in the absence of an element of public interest the Writ of Mandamus as prayed for cannot be granted at this stage. However, keeping in view the statement of the 1st respondent in the counter- affidavit that the new schemes are not time-bound and they are all ongoing schemes, and that the services of the 2nd respondent were utilised at the first phase, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to allot the future works during the period of empanelment among all the eligible tenderers. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Needless to mention that the interim order dated 11-03-2005 shall stand vacated. _________________ 19th April, 2005. gbs To 1 The Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Information and public Relations Dept(GAD), A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. 2. Two CCs to G.P. for General Administration, High Court of AP Bldgs, Hyderabad (OUT). 3. 2 CD copies