The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.26583 of 2011 Date: 16-11-2011 Between: Umasree Enterprises, Eluru ..... Petitioner AND Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam, Tirupathi, Chittoor District, rep. by its Executive Officer, and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt Ch.Ganga Kumari Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, SC for TTD Counsel for respondent No.2: None appeared The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare Para Nos.17 and 20 of E-Auction Notification, issued by respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.1, as illegal and contrary to GO.Ms.No.311, dated 09-04-1990, and declare Para No.16 of the said notification as illegal and unconstitutional. Respondent No.1 has invited Global tenders through respondent No.2 for sale of human hair. Petitioner No.1 has registered itself as one of the tenderers and filed the present Writ Petition with the grievance that the respondents have framed certain clauses in the E-Auction Notification which are either unconstitutional or contrary to G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 09-04-1990. The petitioners pleaded that Clause 17 of the E- Auction Notification envisaged that, ‘the E-Auction accepting authority i.e., the Executive Officer reserves the right either to reject any or all E-Auctions without assigning any reason.’ According to the petitioner, this clause is contrary to Rule 118-A (1) of the Rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.311, Revenue (Endowments-I), dated 09-04- 1990, whereunder if the value of the movable property exceeds Rs.1 lakh, the sale shall be confirmed by the Board of Trustees. Similarly, the petitioner pleaded that clause 20 of the E-Auction Notification, under which the validity of offers is prescribed as 60 days, is contrary to sub-rule (2) of Rule 118-A, under which, if sale is not confirmed within one month, the same shall be deemed to have been confirmed. As regards Clause 16 of the E-Auction Notification, it is the pleaded case of the petitioner that reserving the power to modify/alter/cancel/omit any of the terms and conditions pertaining to E-auctions with the respondents, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that a typographical mistake crept in Clause 17 of the E-Auction Notification. It is explained that instead of using ‘/’, the phrase ‘i.e.’ is used and that the same was subsequently corrected. I find merit in this plea of the respondents. If ‘/’ is used, the said clause will be in conformity with Rule 118-A (1) because if the value of the human hair is less than Rs.1 lakh, it is the Executive Officer, in whom the right is reserved to reject, and in cases, where the value is above Rs.1 lakh, it will be the Board of Trustees, which is the authority that will have such a power. With respect to Clause 20, I do not find that there is a direct conflict between the said clause and Rule 118-A (2) of the Rules. While the Rule has incorporated a deeming clause relating to confirmation of sale, obviously, to play safe Clause 20 has prescribed the period of validity as 60 days. At any rate, the respondents have contended that the petitioner has undertaken to accept all the terms and conditions of E-Auction Notification while registering itself. A copy thereof has also been filed by the respondents as a material paper in support of their submission. In my opinion, while there is no conflict between Clause 20 and Rule 118- A (2), the petitioner has waived its right to raise any objection even in case of such conflict. The last of the pleas of the petitioner can be referred only to be rejected. Law does not prohibit the employer to reserve its right to alter or modify tender conditions depending upon the exigencies. But, in cases where such power is not reserved, the employer has no right to modify or alter the conditions in favour of any of the tenderers and to the detriment of others. The Supreme Court after reviewing case law on the judicial review on award of contracts held that there must be play in joints available to the employer in finalizing contracts and that unless decision making is vitiated by patent illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, the courts will not interfere with the decision. (see Tata Cellular vs. Union of India[1], Air India Ltd., Vs. Cochin International Airport Limited[2], Master Marine Services (P) Ltd., vs. Metcalfe and Hodg kinson (P) Ltd., and another[3] and Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others[4]) Having regard to this settled legal position, I do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner that clause 16 offends any of the constitutional or legal rights of the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.32816 of 2011 is disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 16th November, 2011 LUR [1] AIR 1996 SC 11 [2] (2002) 2 SCC 617 [3] (2005) 6 SCC 138 [4] 2009 (1) SCJ 634