The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31880 of 2011 Date: 02-12-2011 Between: Sri Balaji Trade Fair Exhibition Society, Rep. by its President B.Gopala Krishna ..... Petitioner AND The APSRTC, Managing Director, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s.P.Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: ----- The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is ﬁled for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2, in stipulating payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit for participation in tender process for allotment of vacant land admeasuring Ac.2-33 cents near old bus stand, Anantapur, for conducting an exhibition, in pursuance of tender notiﬁcation No.02/122 (85)/2011 RMA, dated 03-11-2011, issued by respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent No.2 has issued the above-noted tender notiﬁcation inviting tenders for running exhibition in the vacant land belonging to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘APSRTC’). One of the terms and conditions stipulated therein pertains to deposit of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) ﬁxed at Rs.1,50,000/-. The petitioner pleaded that during earlier years, the EMD never exceeded Rs.30,000/-; that enhancing the EMD to such a steep level is irrational and arbitrary and; that the same is intended to help respondent No.3 to corner the contract. I have heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The settled legal position is that the employer has the prerogative to ﬁx its own terms and conditions and neither the tenderer nor the Court would, ordinarily, have any say on this aspect. Except in cases where such tender conditions are patently irrational or mala fide, the Courts seldom interfere with such conditions ( s e e Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.[1] Even on the petitioner’s own showing, respondent No.3 has oﬀered Rs.1,32,000/- per month. The Initial period of agreement is for two months extendable by two more months. The very purpose of collecting EMD is to ensure that, in case of default committed by the successful tenderer, the rents are recovered from the EMD. Even if it is assumed that the contract period is not extended beyond two months, the liability of respondent No.3 would be Rs.2,62,000/- for two months and the EMD prescribed is only Rs.1,50,000/-. In the event of committing of default by respondent No.3, respondent Nos.1 and 2 would be able to recover substantial part of the rents from the EMD. In the light of these facts, the plea of the petitioner, that stipulation of condition of payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit for participation in the impugned tender process is irrational or arbitrary, has no merit. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.39551 of 2011, ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 2nd December, 2011 LUR [1] (2000) 2 SCC 617