IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 1587 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 15/11/2008 in WP NO : 19405 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Ketagani Srinivas S/o Pitchayya D No.5-134 Vegeswarapuram Tallapudi(M) West Godavari District ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rep.by its Executive Officer, Annavaram 2 The Commissioner Endowments Department Opp Saraswada Auditorium Boggulakunda,Hyderabad 3 Eerla Srinu S/o. Varahalu, Main Road Annavaram East Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No1: Sri V.T.M.PRASAD, SC FOR ENDOWNMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1587 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 15.11.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition W.P.No.19405 of 2008, wherein a relief was sought to declare the action of the first respondent in conducting the public auction again on 08.09.2008, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents to set aside the Short Tender-cum- Public auction bearing Rc.No.4/4832/08, dated 04.09.2008. 3. Appellant is the writ petitioner and respondents are the respondents in the said writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the present Writ Appeal, are as under: - The first respondent-temple issued a tender notice on 16.08.2008, inviting tenders to grant licences to various establishments; that Cool drinks and fancy shop was one among them; that the writ petitioner had submitted his tender for grant of licence to the said shop; that the auction was held on 25.08.2008, in which the writ petitioner had offered a sum of Rs.27,000/- per month and he was found to be the highest bidder. It appears, he also deposited a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- and expressed his willingness to have the licence granted in his favour. 6. However, the first respondent-temple issued a fresh notice, dated 04.09.2008, inviting fresh tenders and bids for the very same shop. Aggrieved thereby, the said writ petition came to be filed by the writ petitioner. But, the learned single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, the present Writ Appeal. 7. The writ petitioner contends that he was declared to be the highest bidder in the auction that was conducted on 25.08.2008; which was also confirmed in his favour, and that the other formalities like depositing the required amount is also made. But, the first respondent-temple, instead of granting a licence in his favour in respect of the said shop, had invited fresh tenders, which is unjustifiable and arbitrary. 8. But, the fact appears to be that subsequent to the earlier auction, in which the writ petitioner had participated and was found to be the highest bidder, an offer was made by the third respondent for the very same shop quoting far higher than the amount offered by the writ petitioner. 9. Admittedly, feeling that the amount quoted by the writ petitioner, for the said shop, is low, the first respondent- temple, instead of accepting the bid of the writ petitioner, had resorted to go for a second auction, stated to be conducted on 08.09.2008. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that when the writ petitioner was found to be highest bidder, there is absolutely no reason for the first respondent-temple to go for a second auction; that since the third respondent did not even participate in the auction, which was conducted on 25.08.2008, the offer made by him is not a valid offer and hence prays to allow the present Writ Appeal. 11. In this regard, it is to be seen, as rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, in the impugned order, that as per the terms of the tender notification, there was no communication from the first respondent-temple to the writ petitioner as regards the acceptance of his bid amount in respect of the said shop. Till such an acceptance did not come forward from the first respondent-temple, the tender process cannot be said as completed nor does any right would accrue to the highest bidder, like the writ petitioner, in the present case. 12. For better appreciation, it is relevant to refer to Rule 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Lease of Agricultural Lands Rules, 2003 (for short ‘the Rules’), which is thus: - “Acceptance of Bid: - Leases shall ordinarily be given to the highest bidder. Where it is proposed to accept a bid other than the highest bid, reasons for not accepting the highest or other bids higher than the accepted shall be recorded in writing by the Executive Authority. The acceptance of the bid shall be subject to the approval of the competent authority.” 13. Further, it is apposite to have a look at Rule 16 of the Rules, which deals with approval or disapproval of leases by the competent authority. In the present case, the competent authority is the Commissioner of Endowments Department, who is the second respondent. So, a conjoint reading of Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules would reveal that there must be acceptance of bid. Mere being the highest bidder is not sufficient to declare a person as the ‘successful bidder’. In other words, the highest bidder can be termed as ‘successful bidder’ only when his offer is accepted by the competent authority. 14. The settled law is that tender notification is only an offer in terms of the Indian Contract Act. Therefore, the writ petitioner’s quotation for a sum of Rs.27,000/- per month for grant of licence of the said shop should necessarily be accepted by the competent authority in order to complete the contract. 15. If we put it in a different way, only when the offer is accepted by the competent authority, the tender process would become complete and final and the same can be called as a ‘conclusive contract’. 16. Apparently, in the instant case, there is no acceptance, as postulated under Rule 14 of the Rules, of the bid, as quoted by the writ petitioner for a sum of Rs.27,000/- per month for the said shop. It appears, the third respondent had made an offer, which is substantially higher than the offer quoted by the writ petitioner, for the very same shop. Therefore, the first respondent being a temple, in the interest of the temple, had gone for a second auction for the simple reason that the said shop would fetch more income than the amount quoted by the writ petitioner or as expected by it. In such an event, there is no bar for the first respondent-temple to go for a second auction if the bid amount offered by the highest bidder is not satisfactory. 17. Similarly, for various reasons, which are apparently valid, the temple authorities can go for an auction again, before acceptance of the highest bid. 18. So far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner had completed the other formalities like depositing the required amount, etc., it is to be seen that demand drafts have been taken by the writ petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,90,000/-, even prior to the date of auction. There is no plausible explanation as to how the writ petitioner could take demand drafts for the said amount prior to the date of auction. However, it is an admitted fact that the said demand drafts were submitted by the writ petitioner subsequent to his participation in the said auction and being declared as highest bidder, but what made him to draw the said demand drafts for a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- even before the date of auction is indiscernible and axiomatic as well. 19. Normally, any auction should be conducted in a fair manner in the best interest of the institution. Further, it was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge that the third respondent had offered a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month for grant of licence of the said shop, which is far higher than the amount quoted by the writ petitioner. Of course, this aspect was not put on record by the learned single Judge, perhaps for the reason that the same is neither relevant nor there is any material on record to that effect. But, the fact remains that the shop under auction is very likely to fetch far more amount than the what expected by the first respondent-temple itself or as quoted by the writ petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any irregularity or irrationality or arbitrariness in the action of the first respondent-temple in conducting a second auction in respect of the very same shop. 20. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 03RD DECEMBER 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies