THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 22121 of 2010 Oral order: Questioning the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in allowing respondent No.3 to participate in the bid, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner states that respondent No.1, namely A.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation, issued tender notification for supply plant protection equipment i.e., power operated sprayers, which are used for spraying chemicals. The suppliers will be empanelled, and orders for procurement, will be placed on the suppliers empanelled, who will supply the same to the farmers under subsidy schemes. According to the petitioner, one of the conditions of the tender notification, stipulate that the tenderer must supply the equipment, containing Taiwan make pump only. However, the petitioner states that even though the equipment to be supplied by respondent No.3 do not contain Taiwan make pump, yet respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have sought to empanel respondent No.3 as one of the suppliers. Hence, questioning the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in seeking to empanel respondent No.3 as one of the suppliers of power operated sprayers, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. This Court, by order dated 06.09.2010, while ordering notice before admission, directed the respondent-authorities not to pass any orders as regards empanelment in favour of respondent No.3 or any other person. Respondent No.1 filed vacate stay petition accompanied by counter affidavit, praying to vacate the above interim order passed by this Court. In the counter, it is stated that confirmation was received from seven bidders and all of them were called for negotiations on 06.08.2010. The petitioner, who attended for the negotiations, represented that according to the tender conditions, equipment containing Taiwan make pump alone should be supplies, and as the equipment proposed to be supplied by respondent No.3 does not contain Taiwan make pump, respondent No.3 should be disqualified. It is stated that by inadvertence, instead of indicating Taiwan model, Taiwan make only, was incorporated in the tender conditions. That Taiwan make only, has been clarified as an omission and that it should read as Taiwan model. The engine and the pumps were only referring to the technical model but not the place of manufacture. That the opinion obtained by the Tender Committee, stated that the main eligibility criteria is test certification and quality of the equipment. Thereafter, the Tender Committee rejected the representation of the petitioner to disqualify respondent No.3, and consented to negotiate the price with all the firms, including respondent No.3, who is an indigenous manufacturer. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Respondent No.3 also filed vacate stay petition praying to vacate the interim order, and in the detailed counter filled along with the vacate stay petition, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted consent letter for empanelment of respondent No.3 on the price negotiated, which was even accepted by majority of the suppliers, and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to question the empanelment of respondent No.3 as one of the suppliers, particularly when the requirement of respondent No.1 is not Tainwan make, but Taiwan model. Hence, he prayed that the interim order be vacated and the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 wants to withdraw the tender notification in question and issue fresh tender notification, incorporating all the details, so as to enable all the parties to participate in the tender process. He submitted that since this Court did not stay the tender notification/tender process, but merely stayed the empanelment of respondent No.3 for supply of plant protection equipment, during to the urgent need of supplying the plant protection equipment to farmers, pursuant to the impugned tender notification and empanelment of farmers, respondent No.1 placed orders on the firms empanelled, for supply of plant protection equipment, and after procuring the same, they supplied the same to the farmers by giving subsidy. Since respondent No.1 wants to withdraw the tender notification in question, the action of respondent No.1 in placing orders for and procuring the plant protection equipment, from the firms so empanelled, needs to be ratified. Since respondent No.1 wants to withdraw the tender notification in question and issue fresh tender notification incorporating all the details/specifications of the plant protection equipment, they are permitted to do so and issue fresh tender notification incorporating all the details/specifications of the plant protection equipment, which they want to procure. However, considering the fact that due to urgent need to supply the plant protection equipment to farmers, respondent No.1 is said to have placed orders on the firms empanelled and procured plant protection equipment and supplied the same to the farmers by giving them subsidy, such action of respondent No.1 needs to be ratified, and same is hereby ratified, subject to the condition that the process undertaken to procure the plant protection equipment is otherwise in order. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 8th November, 2010 KSR