IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6344 of 2008 Between: Regati Eswara Rao S/o. Regati Chinna Konda D.No.43-7-33/1,Opposite Lakshmi Ganapathi Alayam Street, Railway New Colony, Visakhapatnam-530016 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India., rep.by the General Manager East Coast Railways, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar 2 East Coast Railways, rep.by its Sr.Divisonal Commercial Manager, office of the Divisional Railway Manager Commercial Branch, Waltair 3 East Coast Railways, rep.by its Divisional Railway Manger, office of the Divisional Railway Manager Visakhapatnam-16 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the tender of the petitioner for allotment of STD booth on the southern end of Platform No.6 of Visakhapatnam Railway Station, submitted in pursuance of the Tender Notice No.WCD/3/ P&T/Sr.DCM/WAT/07 dated 13.3.2007 as arbitrary, in violation of law principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider the tender submitted by the petitioner in pursuance of the above notice after giving him an opportunity to make good the omission of subscribing his signature on part-B of the tender and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.RAJAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.S.VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following : O R D E R: When this writ petition came up for admission with the consent of both the parties the same has been taken up for final hearing. This writ petition has been filed by Regati Eswara Rao with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the tender of the petitioner for allotment of STD booth on the southern end of platform No.6 of Visakhapatnam Railway Station submitted in pursuance of Tender Notice No.WCD/3/P&T/Sr/DCM/WAT/07, dated 13.3.2007 as arbitrary against principles of natural justice. The petitioner submitted tender for allotment of STD booth on platform No.6 of Visakhapatnam Railway Station in pursuance of tender notification dated 13.3.2007 issued by 2nd respondent- East Coast Railways, represented by its Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, O/o Divisional Railway Manager, Commercial Branch, Waltair. The tender consists of two parts. The first part is technical offer and the second part is financial offer. Since the petitioner did not sign in Part B which deals with the financial offer, 2nd respondent proceeded to reject the same. Hence, this writ petition by the petitioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. On 26.3.2008 learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents took notice and sought time to obtain instructions. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Sri.C.Venugopal has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the financial offer made by the petitioner does not contain his signature and therefore it is an invalid tender. The relevant part of Para 2 of the counter affidavit reads as under: “ ..The petitioner has to submit the application in response to the Tender Notification duly complying all the requirements. Prima facie the petitioner has submitted the Financial offer application under Packet B without any signature containing the portion of undertaking to pay the license fee, and commission from out of the earnings earned by the petitioner to the railways. The very omission of the signature on the vital place of the Packet B application i.e. financial offer is against the terms of Tender Instructions clause 3. Clause 3 of the tender instructions specifically states that the candidate should submit the application along with the terms and conditions duly signed on all pages. Whereas the petitioner has failed to perform his primary duty of signing the application on the important and vital place of packet B which has led to the rejection of the application of the petitioner.” Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that 2nd respondent accepted certain tenders which do not contain the signature of tenderers in respect of some other booths and therefore rejection of the tender of the petitioner on the ground that financial offer does not contain the signature is highly arbitrary. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in no case the tender of any one is accepted where his signature is absent in the financial bid. Indisputably the financial offer made by the petitioner does not contain his signature. Therefore, it cannot be termed as a valid tender. 2nd respondent is justified in rejecting the tender of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 27th June 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO.6344 OF 2008 27TH JUNE 2008.