THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4039 of 2011 Dated 29.03.2011 Between: V.G.Chandra Sekhar @ Kavi …Petitioner And The Executive Engineer, Chittoor and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not completing the tender process in respect of the work in serial No.32 in the tender notice dated 21.07.2010 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a registered Class V contractor with Panchayat Raj Department. In response to the tender notice dated 21.07.2010, which notified 49 works in Poothalapattu Assembly Constituency of Chittoor District for providing drinking water works to various water scarcity habitations in five Mandals, the petitioner has submitted his tenders pertaining to the works in serial Nos.26 to 37. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has offered the lowest rates in respect of the works he tendered and that initially he was entrusted works pertaining to serial Nos.27 and 28 and later works pertaining to serial Nos.30, 33, 34 and 35. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he was entrusted the above works, work pertaining to serial No.32 is not being allotted to him. Even though in his affidavit, the petitioner has averred that agreements were already entered into in respect of works shown in serial Nos.30, 33, 34, and 35 in addition to the work orders having been issued for items at serial Nos.27 and 28, in para 11 of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1 in W.P.No.24012 of 2010, it has been stated that the agreements in respect of serial Nos.30, 33, 34 and 35 were entered into by misconstruing the earlier interim orders of this Court and that later the agreements and the work orders were cancelled in respect of those items confining the award of works only in respect of items mentioned in serial Nos.27 and 28. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that though the petitioner has offered the lowest rates in respect of the works tendered by him, he was not awarded works in excess of two in number due to insufficient bid capacity. The respondents have placed reliance on Clause 17.5 (b) of the Tender Conditions in support of this action, which is reproduced below. Clause 17.5 of the tender conditions reads as under: “If any tenderer participates for more than one work and is found qualified individually and happens to be the lowest in more than one tender, his bids will be taken up for evaluation on the following consideration. (a) The differential cost of bids for the lowest and 2nd lowest tenderers for each work will be arrived and the department will decide which tender(s) is to be considered for evaluation subject to the tenderers eligibility specified in clause 9. (b) The bids for the remaining works, though qualified for individual works and also happens to be lowest, will not considered for evaluation on the grounds of insufficient bid capacity experience.” Clause 9 of the instructions to the tenderers contained in Volume I (General Conditions) prescribed the eligibility and qualifying criteria. Clause 9.2 thereof provided that the tenderers should have sufficient bid capacity. It also contains the formula for arriving at the bid capacity. As the petitioner’s bid capacity appears to be Rs.10,00,000/- only, he is eligible to be awarded with the contracts of the value not exceeding Rs.10,00,000/-. As award of the contracts in excess of two works will exceed the bid capacity of the petitioner, the respondents have restricted the award of contracts to two in number to the petitioner. In the light of the tender conditions referred to above, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in not awarding contract in excess of two to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.4995 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th March, 2011 GHN