THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2391 of 2011 Dated 25th March, 2011 Between: V.Ramanjaneya Reddy …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Ushi Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in not opening the petitioner’s price bid in pursuance of tender notice bearing IFB No.34/10-11, dated 26.08.2010, and amendment No.1, dated 21.09.2010, of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. The Superintending Engineer, P.R.Circle, Ongole, Prakasam District, respondent No.3, issued tender notification calling for tenders through e-procurement for execution of repairs to the BT road on the R/F Chimakurthy to Yerragudipadu in Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District at an estimated contract value of Rs.1,82,37,982/-. In response to the said notification, the petitioner, impleaded respondent No.4 and four others have filed their tenders. The tenders are in two parts, namely, technical bid and price bid. The petitioner’s technical bid was not opened by respondent No.3. When the petitioner has approached respondent No.2, the latter issued Memo No.AEE3/DEE1(PR)/Laila/PKM/ Chimakurthy to Yerragudipadu/2010, dated 12.01.2011, directing respondent No.3 to consider the additional information provided by the petitioner. However, respondent No.3, after disqualifying the petitioner in the technical evaluation on the ground that the latter has not uploaded the income tax return for the assessment year 2010-11, has not opened the price bid. At this stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4. In para-6 of the counter affidavit, respondent No.3 has stated that the petitioner failed to upload the SARAL form for the latest assessment year 2010-11, which is a mandatory condition and that therefore, his bid was not opened. It is further stated that as respondent No.4, who was a qualified tenderer has quoted 11.19% less than the estimated value and being the lowest bidder among the qualified tenderers, his tender is accepted. Both the parties placed correspondence between respondent Nos.2 and 3 before this Court, which created more confusion than clearing mist in the case. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer to all that correspondence. The admitted fact remains that under Clause-(iii) of the tender conditions under the heading “Procedure for Bid Submission”, the department shall carry out the technical evaluation solely based on the uploaded certificates/documents, DD/BG towards the EMD in the e-procurement system and open the price bids of the responsive bidders. Under the said condition, the documents to be filed, which are termed as mandatory, are enumerated. Serial No.5 pertains to the copy of latest SARAL form submitted to the income-tax department with PAN card. It is also not in dispute that as the tenders were to be uploaded after September, 2010, the “latest SARAL form” referred to in the tender conditions pertains to the assessment year 2010-11, while the petitioner has uploaded the SARAL form for the assessment year 2009-10. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that in pursuance of the permission granted by respondent No.2, his client has submitted the latest SARAL form for the assessment year 2010-11, which pertains to Sri V.Ramanjaneya Reddy, Managing Partner, in his individual capacity and not to the firm. Irrespective of whether the latest SARAL form submitted by the petitioner pertains to the firm or the Managing Partner, the condition referred to above unequivocally envisages that the department shall carry out the technical evaluation solely based on the uploaded certificates/documents. Admittedly, the petitioner has uploaded SARAL form for the assessment year 2009-10, which according to the petitioner is the latest, while the latest SARAL form pertains to the assessment year 2010-11. Having regard to the above-undisputed position, I am of the opinion that the technical evaluation of the petitioner’s technical bid as non-responsive cannot be interfered with. During the course of hearing, it has come out that the petitioner has offered 11.99% less than the estimated rate, while respondent No.4 offered 11.19% less. As acceptance of respondent No.4’s tender would cause considerable loss to the public exchequer, the case was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for respondent No.4 to ascertain from his client as to whether he is prepared to execute the work at the rate offered by the petitioner. Today, the learned counsel, on instructions, fairly submitted that his client is prepared to execute the work at 11.99% less than the estimated rate. Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to modify the tender rates offered by respondent No.4 at 11.99% less than the estimated rate, as against 11.19% quoted by him. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 07.03.2011, granted by this Court, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.2965 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.Nos.1126 and 1205 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th March, 2011 VGB