THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.29118 of 2010 Date:14.03.2011 Between: M/s. Adarsh Welfare Soceity, Nalgonda District and others ..... Petitioners AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 and 6: Sri N. Sridhar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.4 in not considering the tenders of the petitioners for the work relating to sweeping and cleaning of bus station yard in pursuance of the tender notification dated 25.10.2010 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Circular instructions of respondent No.1. I have heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. representing respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.3 issued a notice inviting tenders for undertaking the work of maintenance of bus stations in Nalgonda region from the registered social service organisations (SSCs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) etc. The petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6, which are registered SSCs, submitted their tenders for different bus stations as per the notification. It is also of relevance to note that all the tenderers quoted the same rates. Tenders of the petitioners were excluded from consideration after their evaluation on the ground that they do not possess PF and ESI registrations. This action is questioned in this writ petition. This Court, by order dated 29.11.2010 directed status quo to be maintained. It is the pleaded case of the respondents and not disputed by the petitioners that on 12.11.2010, contracts for three bus stations in favour of respondent No.5 and for seven bus stations in favour of respondent No.6 were awarded. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that in the evaluation undertaken by the Corporation, the petitioners have got 85 marks each as against 60 and 65 marks respectively obtained by respondent Nos.5 and 6, but, still his clients were excluded from consideration as they are not having PF and ESI registrations in the name of their societies. He further submitted that mere absence of PF and ESI registrations could not disqualify the petitioners from consideration of their tenders and that the petitioners having got the highest marks, rejection of their tenders constitutes patent arbitrariness. The learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, while seeking to sustain the decision of the Corporation, submitted that though the petitioners have secured higher marks, as they failed to have PF and ESI registrations, the Corporation has given preference to those who have such registrations. The learned counsel invited my attention to Clause 4 of the tender notification, which is to the effect that preference will be given only to the tenderers who possess PF and ESI registrations. The learned counsel further explained that as all the tenderers have got the minimum qualifying marks of 60, further marks over and above the qualifying marks have lost relevance and in terms of Clause 4 of the tender notification, preference was given to those who have PF and ESI registrations over the petitioners, who do not have such registrations. I have carefully considered these submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The Circular No.6/2010 dated 15.01.2010 issued by the Corporation governs procedure for award of bus stations maintenance and toilet cleaning contracts. It, inter alia, laid down the selection criteria. Clause 7.1 of the Circular reads as under: Selection criteria plays key role in awarding both the contracts. Limited tenders through news paper notification shall be called exclusively from the Social Service Organisations/Non-Governmental Organisations/Voluntary Organisations/ Non-profit making Organisations/Local Safai Karmacharies etc. as being done in the existing system. The Tender Committee shall evaluate the past performance, experience etc. of the SSOs for deciding the allotment. The highest licence fee offered by the tenderers will be the prime deciding factor for allotment of Toilets maintenance contract subject to other qualifying parameters. Similarly the lowest remuneration quoted by the contractor will be considered for Bus station Sweeping & Cleaning contracts. (Emphasis added) Clause 8 of the Circular deals with qualifying parameters, which earmark marks for various parameters such as length of the period in the related field, past experience and nativity etc. Clause 8.4 of the Circular which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under: Each SSO shall get a minimum of 60 marks to be qualified in the Tenders for further commercial offer evaluation. The SSO which is qualified and quotes the highest licence fee will be awarded the maintenance of toilets contract. The SSO which is qualified and quotes the lowest remuneration will be awarded the Bus station sweeping and cleaning contract. The above reproduced clauses of the Circular read in conjunction with Clause 4 of the tender notification would make it evident that where tenderers get minimum marks, the uppermost criterion for award of contract is the highest licence fee for maintenance of toilets and the lowest remuneration in respect of maintenance of bus stations, sweeping and cleaning contract. If the licence fee or remuneration is quoted equally, then only the question of preference would arise. On a conjoint reading of all the above discussed clauses, I am of the view that the predominant purpose of prescribing marks is to exclude the tenderers from consideration if they fail to get qualifying marks. The marks will lose their relevance once more than one tenderer gets qualifying marks. From that stage, it is obviously the price in the first instance and where the price is equally quoted, the preference as envisaged in Clause 4 of the tender notification which assume relevance. The conditions contained in the tender notification and the above noted Circular read and understood in this manner, the reasonable conclusion that can be arrived at is that where all the tenderers have quoted the same prices as in the present case, the tenderers without PF and ESI registrations will not be considered for award of contracts and it is only those with PF and ESI registrations that will be considered. It has come out at the hearing that if all the tenderers quote uniform rates, they are selected by way of lots. Such being the case, if the petitioners without PF and ESI registrations are also considered by following the lottery system, the Clause giving preference to the tenderers having PF and ESI registrations will be rendered nugatory. That the Corporation chose to give preference to the tenderers having PF and ESI registrations would advance the cause of the labourers. Admittedly, all the tenderers have quoted uniform rates. Therefore, public interest will not suffer if the petitioners’ tenders are not considered on the ground of non-registration with PF and ESI authorities. On the contrary, acceptance of tenders of those persons who hold PF and ESI registrations will serve public interest. On the premises as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, interim orders dated 23.11.2010 and 29.11.2010 are vacated and W.V.M.P.Nos.5847 of 2010 and 471 of 2011 and W.P.M.P.No.37086 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th March, 2011 GHN