IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5423 of 2009 Between: 1 Infrasoft Technologies Ltd. Rep. by its Company Secretary, Shri Siddarth Saboo, A Company Registered under Companies Act, 1956 Having its Registered Office at Trade Star, A Wing, VI Floor, JB Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 059. 2 Infrasoft Tech. India Ltd. Rep. by its Company Secretary, Amit Kumar Mundhe 100% wholly owned subsidiary Company of Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., (1st Petitioner), Having Registered under Companies Act, 1956 Trade Star, A Wing, VI Floor, JB Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 059. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Technologies Service Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director B.R.K.R. Bhawan, B Block, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad - 500 063. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Chairman Having its Registered Office at Troop Bazaar, Post Box No. 142, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that letter bearing No. APTS / APCOB /DCCB/CBS/7497/2008 dated 16/02/2009 of the 1st Respondent, under which the bid of the petitioner for "procurement, customization, integration, implementation of the Core Banking Solutions (CBS) Software and have ownership of the various proprietary rights attaching thereto" as arbitrary, illegal and as just, and issue a consequential direction directing the Respondents to consider in accordance with law the bid submitted by the petitioner along with other bids, for automation of District Cooperative Central Banks (DCCBs) of 2nd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: KUM.C.SINDHU KUMARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the bid submitted by them in accordance with law along with other bids for Automation of District Cooperative Central Banks of the 2nd respondent. Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Prasad, learned senior counsel assisted by Smt.C.Sindhu Kumari for the petitioners, Sri C.Raghu, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent-Andhra Pradesh Technologies Services Limited and Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-A.P.State Cooperative Bank Limited. According to the writ averments, the 1st petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It was formed in the year 1995. The 2nd petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the 1st petitioner. Both the companies are managed by the Board of Directors and the employees and infrastructure is one and the same and are shared. For the convenience of the business and for carrying on the activities of the petitioners, in India, the 2nd petitioner company was formed as a subsidiary of the 1st petitioner. It is stated that the 1st petitioner has been serving the 2nd respondent with the core banking solutions since almost a decade and as at present also, the 2nd respondent is utilizing the software provided by the petitioners for its Core Banking. While so, in August 2008, the 2nd respondent proposed to the petitioners automation of their District Cooperative Central Banks using the Infrasoft Technologies Core Banking Solutions. Initially, the respondents proposed that the existing contract with the petitioners may be extended but as it was found not feasible, the respondents wanted the petitioners to quote its price for such extension. Accordingly, the petitioners had given their price and the same is under consideration. While the matters stood thus, the 1st respondent issued a Tender Notice calling for tenders from the prospective vendors on behalf of APCOB for “Procurement, Customization, Integration, Implementation of the Core Banking Solutions (CBS) Software and have ownership of the various proprietary rights attaching thereto”. Pursuant to the said notice, the 1st petitioner has filed the tender in the name of the 2nd petitioner. However, vide letter dated 16.2.2009 the respondents have called for an explanation from the petitioners for submitting the tender in the name of the 2nd petitioner whereas the bid supporting documents were in the name of the 1st petitioner. By letters dated 18.2.2009 and 24.2.2009 the petitioners clarified the matter but ultimately their tender was rejected on the same ground and hence this writ petition. This Court while admitting the writ petition on 18.3.2009 granted interim directions to the respondents not to finalise any of the bids submitted for the work and not to award any contract in respect thereof to any of the tenderers pending disposal of the writ petition. Thereafter, the respondents have filed W.P.M.P.Nos.1055 and 1066 of 2009 seeking vacation of the said interim orders as also detailed counter affidavits. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank submitted that to avoid further delay and litigation in the matter, the 2nd respondent is willing to consider the bid submitted by the petitioners also along with the other bids, for which course of action, the learned counsel for the petitioners also agreed. In view of the above submission, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the bid submitted by the petitioners also along with other bids without reference to the objections taken in their rejection order dated 4.3.2009. In case, if any adverse order is passed against the petitioners, they are at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.5.6.2009 msv