IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28722 of 2009 Between: Smt. V. Varalakshmi … Petitioner And The Principal Zonal Staff Training College, APSRTC, Kurnool, Kurnool District & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K. Maheswara Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28722 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in selecting respondent No.2 for awarding contract work of cleaning and maintenance of Zonal Staff Training College, Kurnool, as illegal and arbitrary. In response to the tender notice issued by respondent No.1 for the abovementioned work, three tenderers including the petitioner filed their tenders. The terms and conditions of the tender mentioned Rs.45,934=20 ps as the total value of the contract. While the petitioner quoted a sum of Rs.45,934/-, respondent No.2 quoted Rs.45,934=20 ps and the third tenderer, namely, S.Radha also quoted the same price as was quoted by respondent No.2. The petitioner’s tender was rejected treating her as disqualified in view of condition No.5 of the tender conditions, which reads as under: “Any tender (sic er) quoting less than the total value of contract will be automatically disqualified.” Respondent No.1 – Corporation has conducted lottery system between respondent No.2 and S. Radha - third tenderer, as they have quoted the same price and respondent No.2 was selected as successful tenderer in that process. Therefore, contract has been awarded to respondent No.2. At the hearing, Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the petitioner worked out his liability under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 he quoted 20 paise less than the total value of the contract and therefore he could not have been disqualified. I do not find merit in this contention. The tender condition is very categoric and specific which says that any tenderer quoting less than the total value of the contract will be automatically disqualified. Admittedly, the petitioner quoted less than the value of the contract. Even though the difference is marginal, the petitioner stands disqualified, as the tender conditions in a tender notification are required to be construed strictly to avoid giving scope for arbitrariness. In this view of the matter, I do not find any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the action of respondent No.1 in awarding contract in favour of respondent No.2. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.37328 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.04.2010 ES