THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.2021 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent is a Research Organization, established by the Government of India. It issued a tender notice, dated 12-11-2010, for award of contracts for three works, viz., of maintenance and operation of a) AC plant, and other accessory units, b) sub-station and electrical installation, and c) AC plant and electrical installations. The contract was in the form of supply of skilled and semi-skilled technicians and helpers. The tenders were to be submitted by quoting the wages that are to be paid to the skilled and unskilled technicians, contractors, etc. The petitioner, 3rd respondent and another agency submitted the tenders. Respondents 1 and 2 selected the 3rd respondent, and awarded the contract. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rates quoted by the petitioner, either for individual works or in the aggregate are very economical, when compared to those quoted by the 3rd respondent, and that there was no justification for the respondents 1 and 2 in selecting the latter. He contends that, payment of bonus was a statutory obligation, and though no mention is made to it, in the tender, it ought to have been inferred. Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submits that, on receiving three tenders from the petitioner, 3rd respondent and another agency, a comparative statement was prepared by respondents 1 and 2, and taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent was selected. He contends that the figures mentioned by the petitioner in his affidavit are not correct, and they are at variance by those, quoted by the tenderers, under the relevant columns. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The tender document provided for quotation of rates for skilled and unskilled workers together with the payments to be made under the various statutes, such as Provident Fund, Bonus, E.S.I. contribution, etc. In addition to that, the amount to be paid towards service tax and the profit, which the contractors would get, are also, to be quoted. The document further would require the tenderer to mention the summary of the facts and figures, in respect of the individual works. If one goes by the figures quoted by the petitioner, in the summary statement, it would emerge that they are less, compared to those, quoted by the 3rd respondent. However, the summary statement furnished by the petitioner does not accord with the detailed statement of wages, for skilled and semi-skilled workers. On that aspect, the 3rd respondent emerged as L-1. Respondents 1 and 2 have placed before this Court, the tender documents, as well as the comparative statement. It is clearly evident that the rates quoted by the 3rd respondent are economical. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-02-2011. KO