IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8490 of 2008 Between: Kumar Electricals, Rep by Proprietor, Sri B. Eswar Rao, S/o. Late Chandraiah, aged 37 years, Plot No. 60c, IInd Floor, Addagutta Society, Jalavayu Vihar Road, Beside Arjun Theatre, Opp. KPKB, Hyderabad - 500 085. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman & Managing Director, Corporate Office, A.P.N.P.D.C.L., Opp : REC Petrol Bunk, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 004. 2 Jagan Mohan Rao and Company, Swarna Bharathi Complex, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. 3 Power Systems and Logic Controls, H.No. 3-6-157/A, Urdu Hall Lane, Parvathi Residency, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-29. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.ASHOK RAJ Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.S.V.RAMANA FOR MR.O.MANOHER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in entrusting the works to respondent Nos.2 and 3 in relation to Tender Specification No.CGM/NPDCL/GM/EA/0T- 01/2007-08 as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is one of the tenderers along with respondent Nos.2 and 3 and filed its tender in pursuance of the tender notification issued by respondent No.1 for Maintenance and Rectification of ‘269’ numbers of 11 KV, 2 MVAR capacitor banks with associated equipment mentioned therein. The tenders contained two parts, namely, Part I : Technical bid and Part – II : Price bid. It is only the price bids of the tenderers, whose technical bids conformed to the prescribed requirements that will be opened as per the tender conditions. Under Clause 22.1 of the tender conditions, the bids will be opened in the presence of the bidders or their representatives. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that technical bids of all the tenderers were opened on 28.11.2007 in the presence of all the tenderers or their representatives, and the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were qualified in their technical bids and accordingly, their price bids were opened. Since respondent Nos.2 and 3 admittedly offered lower prices than the prices offered by the petitioner, their bids were accepted and the contract work was awarded to them. Six months after the award of contract, the petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the same. At the hearing, Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 4.2 of the tender conditions envisages that all bidders shall furnish the information and enclose the documents prescribed in Sub-Clauses (a) to (c) of the said Clause to the tenders and one of the documents required to be filed by the tenderers pertains to experience in work of a similar nature and size for the last five years. The learned counsel also relied on Clause 4.4(b), which prescribed that to qualify for award of the contract, each bidder should submit experience certificate issued by an Engineer not below the cadre of Divisional Engineer along with supporting xerox copies of Agreements along with the technical bid, for the works executed in a continuous period of 12 months during the last five years preceding the last date of submission of bids. Relying on these two Clauses, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to file along with the technical bid, the experience certificate and hence, their price bids ought not to have been opened and the contracts should not have been awarded to them. Even, according to the petitioner, technical bids were opened on 28.11.2007. The petitioner had every opportunity of raising objection regarding the alleged non-compliance of the tender conditions by respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioner nor any material has been filed to show that the petitioner raised any such objection. It allowed the contract to be awarded to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and having waited for six months, it filed the present writ petition. Moreover, except the ipse dixit of the petitioner that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not filed experience certificates, no supporting material is produced by the petitioner to substantiate the said averment. Having carefully considered the material on record, I am of the view that the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the award of contracts in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11244 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th APRIL, 2008 kvni