THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.12878 of 2011 Date: 09.09.2011 Between: N. Suryanarayana … Petitioner and Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Civil Supplies Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.12878 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri K.S. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The 2nd respondent-District Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, East Godavari District, Kakinada, issued a notification dated 24.3.2011 inviting tenders from transport contractors for the supply of essential commodities to the Government Hostels and Fair Price Shops. In pursuance of the said notification, even though 15 bids were received, the petitioner herein and one B. Venkateswara Rao were found to be qualified. While the petitioner quoted Rs.6-25 per quintal, the said B.Venkateswara Rao quoted Rs.5-25 per quintal. Both of them were called for negotiations and in that process the petitioner offered to reduce the price to Rs.4-85 per quintal. Therefore, the bid of the petitioner was accepted and he has been carrying on the work. 3. The petitioner states that after his bid was accepted, he came to know that the unsuccessful bidder was not qualified to be considered as the vehicle offered by him was involved in an offence under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 23.4.2011 seeking to cancel his tender or alternatively to allot the tender at reduced rate as per the rates prevailing in the previous year. Complaining that the respondents did not consider his representation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the fact that the vehicle offered by the unsuccessful bidder had been brought to the notice of the respondents, his bid would not have been taken into consideration and in such an event, the petitioner would have been the sole bidder and he would not have quoted the lower price. He also contends that the petitioner was lured to quote lower price in order to avoid competition from the other bidder. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondents be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the unsuccessful bidder B. Venkateswara Rao did not suffer any disqualification as alleged by the petitioner. He also contends that, at any rate, the petitioner was under no duress to quote any particular price. Even though initially the petitioner quoted the price at Rs.6-25, during the negotiations, he himself lowered the price to Rs.4-85 and hence his bid was accepted and he was awarded the contract. Therefore, the petitioner is not justified in seeking revision of the contract price. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner himself quoted the price at Rs.6-25 and further reduced it to Rs.4-85 during the negotiations. There is absolutely nothing to infer that there was any duress or coercion from any body on the petitioner to quote a lower price. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he quoted the lower price only to avoid competition. Participation in a bid and quoting the price is voluntary and contractual in nature. The petitioner, who has voluntarily participated and quoted the price is, therefore, not entitled to seek revision of the quoted price. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any provision of law or any enforceable instrument to compel the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no obligation on the part of the respondents to consider the representation said to have been made by the petitioner. 8. For the foregoing, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 09.09.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.12878 of 2011 09.09.2011 (Msr)