IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.7831 of 2008 Between: M/s.Microplex (India), 401, Janapriya Prameela Enclave, Umanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Reptd., by its Authorized Signatory Mukund Daga, S/o.G.K.Maheswari, Hyderabad and two others. … Petitioners And A.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limitd, 504, Hermitage Office Complex, Hill Fort Road, Hyderabad, reptd., by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K.Venugopal Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri Meherchand Nori for R.1. Sri S.Bhooma Goud for R.2 to R.4. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in awarding contracts to respondents 2 to 5 for manufacturing 2000 Soil Testing Kits each pursuant to tender notification No.Agros/FMD/08-09 dated 15-2-2008 and specifications attached thereto for item No.48 knowing fully well that the Soil Testing Kits manufactured and supplied by them are not as per Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University (for short “the ANGRAU”), as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner No.1 is the manufacturer of Soil Testing Kits and petitioners 2 and 3 are involved in marketing of the said kits. Petitioners 2 and 3 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1-3-2008 with the ANGRAU seeking transfer of technology for the product of Soil Testing Kits on exclusive basis. In pursuance of tender notice dated 15-2- 2008 issued by respondent No.1, petitioner No.1 filed its tender quoting Rs.1,054/- per each Soil Testing Kit; Rs.10/- each for packing charges; Rs.600/- for refilling pack; and Rs.10/- each for packing charges of the refilling pack with Ex.Hyderabad delivery. Respondents 2 to 5 quoted Rs.1,276/-; Rs.1,022-50 ps., and Rs.1,023/-, respectively. After negotiations with all the tenderers, respondent No.1 awarded contract to petitioner No.1 for supply of 2000 Soil Testing Kits and similarly respondents 2 to 5 were also awarded with contract for similar quantities. This decision of respondent No.1 is questioned by the petitioners on the sole ground that their verification revealed that respondents 2 to 5 do not have the capacity to supply 2000 numbers of Soil Testing Kits and that they do not have the specified technology to manufacture Soil Testing Kits. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit and respondents 2 to 4 filed a common counter-affidavit. Heard Sri K.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel for respondent No.1; and Sri S.Bhooma Goud, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4; and perused the record. A perusal of the tender document shows that Soil Testing Kit (Mini portable) is one of the items notified for supply at Serial No.48 of the tender document. Item No.48 of the tender specifications prescribed that Soil Testing Kits shall be as per the ANGRAU Technology. After receipt of tenders by respondent No.1, they were forwarded to ANGRAU; vide its letters dated 27-3-2008 along with samples of Soil Testing Kits to inform whether they meet the specifications as per the technology developed by ANGRAU. After examining the kits of respondents 2 to 5, the I/c. Director of Research, ANGRAU replied vide letter dated 27-3-2008 to the General Manager of respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that the University has tested for the functionality of the sample Soil Testing Kits of the said respondents and that they are found to have been prepared as per the specifications of the technology and guidelines provided to A.P. AGROs. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 to 4 placed heavy reliance on the said correspondence and contended that the said documents clearly establish that respondents 2 to 5 satisfied the tender condition provided for supply of Soil Testing Kits in accordance with the specification of ANGRAU technology. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that petitioner No.1 has exclusive right to use ANGRAU technology and, hence, respondents 2 to 5 cannot be permitted to copy the said technology. The learned counsel pointed out from paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit of respondent No.1 and stated that it is not permissible for ANGRAU and AGROS to transfer the technology, which is exclusively given to petitioner No.1 under a separate agreement. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I do not feel inclined to accept the same. The only issue which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether award of contracts in favour of respondent 2 to 5 suffers from any illegality, in that whether respondent No.1 had violated the tender conditions by awarding the contracts in favour of respondents 2 to 5. From the discussion undertaken above, it is clear that the only requirement to be satisfied under the tender conditions is that the Soil Testing Kits to be supplied by the successful tenderers shall conform to ANGRAU technology. Whether ANGRAU or respondent No.1 are entitled to share this technology with respondents 2 to 5 does not fall for consideration of this Court. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is concerned only with the question whether the State or its instrumentalities have followed transparency and fairness in awarding the contract. Once the Court is satisfied that the contract is awarded by strictly following the tender conditions, it shall not examine the issue further. If the petitioners are aggrieved by transfer of technology either by ANGRAU or respondent No.1, that would give raise to a different cause of action. But the scope of this Writ Petition cannot be permitted to be expanded by entertaining the above mentioned contention of the petitioner that ANGRAU committed breach of condition in the agreement entered by it with the petitioners. Having regard to the findings given supra that respondent No.1 has not committed breach of any of the tender conditions in awarding contracts to respondents 2 to 5, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 02-5-2008 MNR