HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.4244 of 2010 Date: November 29, 2011 Between: B. Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And 1. The Deputy Salt Commissioner, Chennai & 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.4244 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner, who has given highest bid in response to the tender called for by the first respondent, is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of the Deputy Salt Commissioner dated 27.01.2010 whereunder the highest rate of Rs.89/- offered by the petitioner was not accepted by the tendering authority on the ground that it is not competitive with reference to prevailing trend and hence all the tenders were rejected by the tendering authority duly informing the petitioner that it has decided to invite fresh tenders and leaving it open for the petitioner to participate in the next call if interested. 2. The said impugned order is questioned inter alia on the ground that the minimum rate quoted in the said tender was Rs.10/- per tonne and the petitioner having offered highest amount of Rs.89/- per tonne. There is no rationale in rejecting the petitioner’s offer. It is also alleged that even earlier similar tenders were called for and the highest rates offered were again rejected on the self same ground that the rate offered is not competitive. Learned counsel submits that the respondents have committed error in not appreciating that situation of the land in the present case is quite different from other lands and hence comparison of rates with regard to other lands cannot be applied to the present fact situation. The learned counsel therefore supports the petitioner’s contention by submitting that the action of the respondents in not even calling the petitioner for negotiations smacks of arbitrariness, which calls for interference by this Court. 3. A counter-affidavit is filed by the first respondent pointing out that tenders for grant of lease of 377.50 acres of Salt Departmental lands situated at Pandraka Salt Factory located in Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh for manufacture of salt was called for fixing the last date for receipt of tenders as 23.9.2009. Though three tenders were received, the highest tender was found to be much lower than the prevailing trend and as such it was not accepted and fresh tender was called for indicating the last date of receipt of tenders as 18.01.2010. In response to the second call, six tenders were received out of which the petitioner has submitted his tender at Rs.89/- per metric tonne. Though the petitioner’s tender is highest, the rate worked out was found to be lower than the prevailing rate. The respondents also states that similar land when put to auction fetched better rate of Rs.91.66 per metric tonne and on that ground the present rate quoted by the petitioner though highest was found not competitive. Reliance is also placed on Condition 8 reserving the right of accepting any tender without assigning any reasons. According to the respondent, the higher tender rate of Rs.180.09 per metric tonne was also received in nearby Chinnaganjam factory and therefore the impugned order is justified by leaving that petitioner can always participate in fresh tender when called for. 4. It cannot be disputed that it is for the authority inviting the tenders to accept or reject, inasmuch as calling for tender is merely an invitation for offer and the tenders filed in response thereto are merely offers made for the tenderer to accept or reject. In the present case when the authority chooses to reject highest offer on the ground that it is not competitive, no legal right of the petitioner can be said to have infringed, as the authority inviting the offers has right to accept or reject the offer without assigning any reasons. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his tender is much more than the minimum rate of Rs.10/- per tonne fixed in the said tender also has no substance, as the same minimum rate does not necessarily reflect the estimation of the tenderer with respect to value likely to be fetched. It is well settled that the minimum rate or the upset price is only to enable that no offer below the minimum rate will be entertained. I am therefore unable to see any legal infirmity in the impugned order. 5. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner shall have liberty to participate in the fresh tenders if any called for by the respondents. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, interim direction passed on 04.3.2010 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Date: November 29, 2011. BSB