IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.11158 of 2009 Between: K.Ajay Kumar Ghosh ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary, R&B, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Sudhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Transport, Roads & Buildings Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not approving the petitioner’s tender pertaining to the work of improvements to Darsi - Addanki Road from Km-12/8 to 26/0 in Prakasam District, in pursuance of tender Notice bearing NIT No.49/CRF/ONG/DEE-3/AEEE1/2009, dated 21-02-2009, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to approve the petitioner’s tender and to drop all further proceedings in pursuance of tender Notification No.58/CRF/ONG/DEE-3/AEEE1/2009, dated 22-05-2009. The petitioner, who is one of the tenderers for the above-noted work, became the lowest tenderer and in ordinary course, the tender should have been awarded to him. However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have issued fresh tender notice on the purported ground that the petitioner has submitted a false turnover certificate in the tender process relating to a different contract. This action of the respondents is assailed in this Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that the tender filed by the petitioner in the subject work satisfies all the prescribed criteria. It is also not in dispute that the alleged turnover certificate was not used in connection with this work. Therefore, this Court is not able to find any justification for respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deny the contract to the petitioner on the ground that he has produced a false turnover certificate in connection with a different work. When proposals to blacklist the petitioner were submitted to respondent No.1, the latter has issued Memo No.13644/R.VI(2)/2008-3, dated 04-11-2009, directing that all further action for blacklisting the petitioner be dropped considering the act alleged against the petitioner as his first mistake. Following the said memo, respondent No.3 issued letter No.211/I.M.Road/ /ATO/2008-09, dated 16-12-2009, dropping all further proceedings to blacklist the petitioner. At no point of time, any order, disqualifying him to participate in the tenders, was passed nor any order, blacklisting him, was made. In these circumstances, the action of the official respondents in issuing fresh tender notice ignoring the petitioner’s lowest tender cannot be sustained in law. For the above-mentioned reasons, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to treat the petitioner’s tender filed in pursuance of tender notice bearing NIT No.49/CRF/ONG/DEE-3/AEEE1/2009, dated 21-02- 2009, as valid and process the same in accordance with law, ignoring subsequent tender notice, bearing NIT.No.58/CRF/ONG/DEE-3/AEEE1/2009, and the tenders of respondent No.4 and others filed in response thereto. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. As a sequel, WPMP.Nos.14340, 14959, 37192 of 2009 and 29224 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 24th June, 2011 lur