THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16222 of 2005 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner, a contractor, seeks the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit of the petitioner, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Rejection Order passed by respondent No.1 and 2 vide Lr.Rc.No.To/149/05, dated 06.04.05 against the petitioner rejecting his tender offer, as arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003, in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially, set aside the award of the Tender to respondent No.3 on 22.03.2005 in pursuance of the direction from respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 vide Memo No.NB10/7911/03/2005, dated 22.03.2005 or in the alternative, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to award Compensation by way of damages to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) being the loss caused to the petitioner due to non award of the tender to him.” The first respondent issued notification bearing No.33/04-05, dated 17.01.2005, published in Eenaadu Telugu Daily, Hyderabad Edition, on 22.01.2005, inviting tenders from the eligible contractors to lay a road from Pulipadu to Srinivasapuram in Gurajala Mandal of Guntur District. The petitioner as well as the third respondent responded to the said notification and submitted tenders. At the first instance, technical bid was opened and thereafter, price bid. After the price bid was opened, the same was submitted to the first respondent – Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, NABARD, Hyderabad, for taking further action. It appears, the first respondent issued Memo bearing No.NB10/7911/2005, dated 14.03.2005, to the second respondent - Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, Guntur, to explain how the technical bid of the petitioner was qualified, when there is no availability of Mini Hot Mix Plant as per the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Kavali. Then, the second respondent replied that the tender of the petitioner was treated as qualified by oversight since he has produced a lease deed showing that one Sri Ch.Balaji leased out a Mini Hot Mix Plant to him. However, in the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, there is no such machinery owned by the said Balaji. He owned a Hot Mix Plant of 40 to 60 tons capacity but he did not own any Mini Hot Mix Plant with the capacity of 6 to 10 tons per hour. At that point of time, the third respondent was informed to quote the rates on par with the rates quoted by the petitioner, for which, he has accepted. Thereupon, pursuant to such offer made by the third respondent, he was qualified in the technical bid, his offer was accepted and an agreement was entered into. When the petitioner sought suspension of the order, dated 22.03.2005, in WPMP.No.20607 of 2005, this Court by order, dated 04.07.2008, refused to grant interim order on the ground that the work awarded to the third respondent was already executed and completed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having accepted the technical bid and in view of the fact that the price bid offered by the petitioner was lowest, the respondents ought not to have accepted the bid of the third respondent. It is further submitted that accepting the bid of the third respondent without giving any notice to the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal, as such, the petitioner sought for invalidation of the contract awarded to the third respondent, and directions for payment of compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Though the writ petition was admitted on 25.07.2005, no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the first and second respondents that since the petitioner did not qualify as per the tender conditions, he was not awarded contract. It is further submitted that his technical bid was accepted in view of the lease deed produced by him showing Mini Hot Mix Plant with the capacity of not less than 6/10 tons per hour. It is also submitted that the certificate issued to the said Balaji shows that he did not own any Mini Hot Mix Plant. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court the lease deed executed by the said Balaji in favour of the petitioner, on Rs.100/- worth non-judicial stamp paper, and also a certificate signed by the Executive Engineer with regard to machinery owned by Ch.Balaji, with whom, the petitioner has entered into lease to obtain such machinery. A perusal of the lease deed shows that it contains an item, namely, Mini Hot Mix Plant. It is evident from the certificate signed by the Executive Engineer that though it consists of 17 items, there is no item of Mini Hot Mix Plant, but there is one item of machinery, namely, Hot Mix Plant of 40 to 60 tons capacity. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has filed a lease deed showing machinery i.e. Mini Hot Mix Plant as if it was taken on lease from Balaji, who did not own it. It is not in dispute that as per the tender conditions, what is notified is to own or lease of Mini Hot Mix Plant. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not comply with the tender conditions, as such, he was disqualified and the same was noticed on the query put by the first respondent. While it is true that at the initial stage, his technical bid was accepted, after opening price bid, the same was forwarded for approval by the first respondent, who in turn, noticed that the petitioner has not complied with such tender conditions. Having regard to the said fact, the bid of the third respondent was qualified and accepted by negotiating the price, as such, there is no prejudice caused to the petitioner, but at the same time, it is to be noticed that while the lease deed states that the petitioner has taken lease of Mini Hot Mix Plant from Balaji, the certificate issued by the Executive Engineer shows that there was no such machinery owned by Balaji. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in awarding contract to the third respondent for execution in the absence of compliance of tender conditions by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th AUGUST, 2010. kvni