THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5224 OF 2010 Dated 9th April, 2010 Between: Padala Veerunaidu …Petitioner And 1.The Managing Director, APSRTC and 2 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.Balasubrahmanyam Counsel for the respondents : Mr.K.Madhava Reddy SC for APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 23-06-2009, of respondent No.3 whereby he rejected the petitioner’s tender and forfeited the EMD as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to allot shop No.13 of Yellamanchili Bus Station to him or in the alternative to direct the respondents to return the EMD amount of Rs.22,500/- deposited by him for shop Nos.13 and 14. In response to the notice issued by the respondents inviting tenders for construction of stalls in Yellamanchili Bus Station in terms of the tender conditions, the petitioner filed his bids for shop Nos.13 and 14. According to the petitioner, the price quoted by him in respect of shop No.13 is the highest, but three months after the opening of the tenders, respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings forfeiting the EMD paid by him in respect of both the stalls. This action is challenged in this Writ Petition. A counter-affidavit is filed by the Law Officer of APSRTC on behalf of the respondents wherein it is inter alia stated that under Clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the bid, the bid must be submitted in the prescribed bid form and the bid form is not transferable. It is further averred that the bids were purchased by one Sri P.Nageswar Rao, who is the nephew of the petitioner, while the bids were submitted by the petitioner. The respondents have, therefore, taken the stand that as filing of the bids was in violation of the above-mentioned condition, they have not accepted the petitioner’s bid in respect of stall No.13, though he offered the highest bid amount, and forfeited the EMD amounts. At the hearing, Sri M.Balasubrahmanyam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that P.Nageswar Rao being no other than the petitioner’s nephew, the respondents should not have rejected the petitioner’s bid for stall No.13. He further submitted that even assuming that the bids are not transferable, there is no provision for forfeiture of EMD on that ground. As regards the first contention of the learned Counsel, irrespective of whether the person, who purchased the bids, is the petitioner’s nephew or not, the tender condition is required to be construed as the plain language suggests. Admittedly, the bid was not purchased in the name of the petitioner. In the face of the unequivocal condition prohibiting transfer of bid, the petitioner is not entitled to file the bid in his name while admittedly it was purchased in the name of another person. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the first submission of the learned Counsel. As regards the second submission, the learned Standing Counsel is unable to point out any condition, which enables the respondents to forfeit the petitioner’s EMD merely on account of the fact that the bid form was not purchased in his name. While rejection of bid on the said ground is one thing, forfeiture of EMD is quite another thing. While the respondents can justify rejection of the petitioner’s bid under condition No.3, no condition empowers the respondents to forfeit the EMD on the ground of the bidder not purchasing the bids in his name. In this view of the matter, the action of the respondents in forfeiting the EMD of the petitioner for stall Nos.13 and 14 cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The respondents are directed to refund the EMD amount paid by the petitioner in respect of the above- mentioned two stalls within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 9th April, 2010 lur