HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.16692 of 2011 Date : 24-8-2011 Between: M/s. Sri Sai Constructions Company, Represented by its partner M.Ram Kishore, Hyderabad .. Petitioner And The Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri S.Surender Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Assistant Government Pleader for Forests Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri Ch.Jagannadha Rao 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 taking steps to entrust the works mentioned in e-procurement tender notification NIT No.87/2011/NP-2, dated 9-5-2011, to respondent No.3, as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have issued the above mentioned tender notification for construction of protection wall near Southend Park, Social Forestry Nursery at Mahavir Harina Vanasthali National Park, Hyderabad. The petitioner and respondent No.3 have filed their tenders for the said work. The tender of respondent No.3 has been accepted. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The only plea raised by the petitioner against the acceptance of the tender of respondent No.3 is that he has failed to comply with one of the qualification requirements envisaged in Clause 14.1(d) of the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT), by failing to file proof of Value Added Tax (VAT) registration with the Commercial Tax Department under the A.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") and the latest Commercial Tax Clearance Certificate. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.3 has not filed the VAT registration certificate till opening of the price bid. In my opinion, ordinarily a tenderer is bound to comply with the qualification requirements which are essential for execution of the work. In respect of conditions which are not so essential, a little latitude needs to be shown where public interest will not suffer. A reading of Clause 14.1 of the NIT shows that as many as fifteen conditions have been stipulated. A careful analysis of these conditions would show that they pertain to various aspects such as previous experience of execution of similar nature of work, availability of key and critical equipment, availability of key personnel, possession of liquid assets, payment of EMD etc. The filing of a copy of the certificate of VAT registration with the Commercial Tax Department, is also stipulated as one of the conditions. On a close examination of these conditions, I am of the opinion that while the requirements such as previous experience of execution of similar nature of work, availability of key and critical equipment, availability of key personnel, possession of liquid assets, payment of EMD etc., are essential requirements which reflects on the capacity of the tenderer to execute the work, the requirement of registration with the Commercial Tax Department is not so essential as to ignore the price bid of the tenderer. Undoubtedly, a contractor is bound to get registered with the Commercial Tax Department under the Act. However, such registration is essential for payment of tax in respect of the amounts received under the contract in question. After opening the price bid, finding that respondent No.3 has offered the lowest bid, respondent No.2 has called upon him to furnish the original uploaded documents which included VAT registration certificate from the Commercial Tax Department. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the said letter, respondent No.3 has produced such a certificate. At the hearing, it has come out that the price offered by respondent No.3 is Rs.12,16,668.29 less than the price offered by the petitioner. In my opinion, public interest impels that non-compliance with the condition relating to filing of the VAT registration certificate by respondent No.3, needs to be ignored in order to save the public exchequer, substantial public money. This court is inclined to show this much latitude keeping in view the nature of the condition which was not complied with, coupled with the further fact that there is a substantial variation between the price offered by the petitioner and that of respondent No.3. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order dated 17-6-2011 is vacated and WPMP No.20049/2011 and WVMP Nos.2956/2011 and 3206/2011 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 24-8-2011 AM