HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18691 of 2011 Date: August 25, 2011 Between: M/s. New SLV Medical Agencies, Represented by its proprietor G. Srinivasulu, Kadapa. … Petitioner And 1. The Director, Sri Venkateshwara Institute of Medical Sciences, TTD Devastanams, Tirupathi and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18691 of 2011 O R D E R: The writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s technical bid pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 22.6.2011, as illegal. 2. Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences, the first respondent herein, is a deemed university. It runs a medical college and also an attached teaching hospital. It has floated a tender notification on 22.6.2011 for running a medical store in the hospital premises. The eligibility criteria required the bidder to produce solvency certificate in a sum of Rs.16.00 lakhs. The petitioner has produced two separate solvency certificates issued by the same banker each to the value of Rs.8.00 lakhs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this must be regarded as satisfying the eligibility criteria for production of Rs.16.00 lakhs solvency certificate by the bidder. 3. Whereas, MS. P. Sarada, learned standing counsel for the first respondent, would submit that when the first respondent authorities have taken up the matter with the banker, the Manager of Karur Vysya Bank, Kadapa, confirmed that the petitioner has submitted two separate applications for grant of two solvency certificates and based on the same, the bank had issued two separate certificates with two different numbers meant for two different transactions. It is therefore clear that the solvency certificate produced by the petitioner in a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs is what has been certified by the banker and the petitioner wanted two such certificates to enable him to participate in two separate bids or for utilizing each one of the certificates for distinct and separate purposes, the banker had issued solvency certificates (two in number). 4. In the instant case, the first respondent has solicited a solvency certificate for a sum of Rs.16.00 lakhs. The writ petitioner has only produced a certificate each in a sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs. The banker for the writ petitioner has not certified the petitioner’s solvency to be Rs.16.00 lakhs. That being a qualifying requirement for a bidder, it is difficult to describe the action of the first respondent in rejecting the bid of the petitioner as non-responsive, as either arbitrary or whimsical. If a bidder does not satisfy the basic qualifying requirement, such an order cannot be construed as responsive and it cannot be dealt with any further. The action of the first respondent in this regard is therefore not unjust. 5. Hence the writ petition is dismissed as there are no merits, but however without costs. ________________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) Date: August 25, 2011. BSB