HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.9239 of 2011 Date : 7-4-2011 Between : K.S. Shaikshavali Reddy .. Petitioner And Sri Bhramaramba Mallikarjuna Swamyvarla Devasthanam, Srisailam, Kurnool District Represented by its Executive Officer & Deputy Commissioner and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri P.Nagendra Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri Shashidhar representing Sri V.T.M. Prasad The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not confirming the petitioner’s tender submitted for maintenance of the toll gate for a period of one year commencing from 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2012 and in stead inviting fresh tenders as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashidhar, learned counsel representing Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1- Devasthanam. In response to notification dated 5-3-2011, issued on e- procurement basis, the petitioner has filed his tender offering a sum of Rs.8,34,167/- per month for grant of licence for maintenance of respondent No.1-Devasthanam’s toll gate. The petitioner’s tender turned out to be the highest. However, without accepting the said tender, respondent No.1-Devasthanam has called for fresh tenders. This action is questioned in this Writ Petition. At the hearing Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly the petitioner’s offer is the highest and therefore the action of the respondents in not accepting the said offer and calling for fresh tenders is arbitrary and irrational. The learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-Devasthanam placed before the court letter Rc.No.C2/1588/2011, dated 28-3-2010 of the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Executive Officer of respondent No.1- Devasthanam addressed to respondent No.2 wherein it is stated that one of the three tenderers, namely, A.Veera Reddy, addressed a letter wherein he has stated that while offering his bid he has omitted to mention one zero and as a result of it, in stead of showing the sum of Rs.12,00,500/-, the offer is shown as Rs.1,20,500/-. The learned counsel submitted that considering the said letter of the Executive Officer of respondent No.1-Devasthanam, respondent No.2 has permitted respondent No.1-Devasthanam to issue a fresh tender notice in order to secure higher revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were not supposed to entertain any correspondence from the tenderers after the tenders were filed, more so, after they were finalized and therefore they should not have acted upon such letter addressed by one of the tenderers. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that his offer was accepted. Though his offer remained the highest, until the same is accepted, the petitioner cannot claim to have any indefeasible right to insist that the contract should be awarded to him. Ordinarily, the highest offer needs to be accepted. However, this is not an inviolable rule. If the facts and circumstances justify not to accept the highest offer and in stead to invite fresh tenders, such a course is certainly permissible. In my opinion, the respondents were justified in calling for fresh tenders and considering the plea of one of the tenderers that he was prepared to offer Rs.12,00,500/- and that by mistake his offer was shown as Rs.1,20,500/- in the interests of securing more revenue for respondent No.1-Devasthanam. It is not as if respondent No.1 has awarded the contract in favour of the said tenderer. It has only decided to call for fresh tenders. In the light of the above facts, I do not find anything arbitrary or illegal in the action of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as he was making efforts to file this Writ Petition, he could not file his tender. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that though as per the original schedule, technical bid was to be opened on 6-4-2011, due to certain administrative exigencies, opening of technical as well as price bids was postponed to 9-4-2011. Since the petitioner offered the highest bid during the previous tender process and having regard to the reason assigned by him for not filing his tender in response to the fresh notification, in the interests of justice, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to file his tender. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to file his tender before 4 p.m. on 8-4-2011. If such tender is received by respondent No.1- Devasthanam, the same shall be considered along with other tenders. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.11443/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 7-4-2011 AM