THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.848 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed against the order dated 14.09.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17774 of 2011. The appellants herein filed the above writ petition questioning the notice dated 18.05.2011 issued by the third respondent-Chief General Manager, Singareni Colleries Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “SCCL”) stating that lottery for Unit Rate Tenders will be taken from among the contractors who got registered to that specific area for Unit Rate Tenders for which NITs to be released with effect from 01.06.2011; that the contractors, who are registered area specific i.e., RG.I, have to participate in Unit Rate Tenders of RG.I area and not eligible to participate in Unite Rate Tenders of other areas; that in regard to open tenders and e-procurement tenders, contractors can participate in any tender of any area at their will, as per their eligibility criteria, and called upon the contractors to approach the Office of GM (Civil), KGM in person along with original registration certificate & ID card and submit a written option to choose one area in SCCL for participation in Unit Rate tenders. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties and considering the entire material available on record, by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition holding that instead of calling open tenders, the SCCL has chosen the method of inviting limited number of contractors who have already been enlisted with it locally/area wise for awarding works; that the policy choice exercised by the respondent company to confine awarding works to the locally registered contractors cannot be faulted; that above all, the civil maintenance works which the respondent company awards are highly man power intensive and that if the contractor is to supply man power to attend to these local works, it becomes easier to get the works executed by the locally available man power. On the other hand, if a contractor has to mobilize the work force from one area or locality to another far off area or locality at a distance, it might create a problem for securing adequate number of people. Therefore, the decision of the SCCL to decentralize these works cannot be found faulted with. Further, by drawal of lots, if three of the four petitioners have already been awarded works, it will be difficult to firm up any opinion saying that all the contractors may not have a fair chance of being awarded one work at least by the respondent corporation and it is not for the Courts as to which is the better method for getting works executed through contractors. Questioning the same, the present writ appeal is filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is fairly well settled that tender terms are contractual and the jurisdiction of the Courts to judge as to how tender terms would have to be framed is barred, since it is not for the Courts to suggest a better policy decision to be adopted in awarding the tenders. The nature of the contract, which has been emphasized by the respondents in their counter, is that some civil contract works like civic maintenance in the Townships, House keeping of buildings etc., in the respondent company involve major portion of work of engaging contract labour and payment of their wages; that in the respondent company previously these works were called under open tendering system and awarded to successful lowest bidder; that some contractors used to quote discount rates to garner the work; that since major component of the work involved is payment of contract labour wages, some contractors after making payment of wages to contract labour in front of principal employer/authorized representative resorted to take part of wages from the contract labour there by contract labour were under-paid; that since the contract labour and contract labour unions made continuous representations to remedy the malady of underpayment and to ensure full payment of wages, the respondent company has taken the policy decisions, which reads as under: a) The payment of minimum wages to workmen will have to be made through banks. After releasing the 1st month’s bill, the contractor has to remit the wages into the respective accounts of all the labour engaged by him on the work. For releasing payments of work done for the subsequent months, the contractor has to produce proof of having remitted the previous months wages into the respective bank accounts of labour engaged by him. b) Civic Maintenance, House keeping works etc., wherein major portion of the work is engaging and payment of wages to contract labour and such works are estimated at Government prescribed prevailing minimum wages duly adding 7.5% of contractor profit. Such works are awarded on SCCL estimated cost thus 7.5% contractor’s profit under Unit Rate System i.e., by conducting draw among the all eligible intending bidders.” In that view of the matter, the bidders necessarily have to bid their tenders of minimum wages by adding 7.5%, which is uniform to all Contractors and the same will be drawn by lottery system, which prevents the maladies, which were resorted to by the contractors for the previous years. Therefore, the appellants cannot contend that the policy decision adopted by the SCCL is arbitrary or irrational or irrelevant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. A.GOPAL REDDY, J R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 02.11.2011 va