The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.2816 of 2010 Dated 27th July, 2010 Between: Md.Ibrahim …Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.R.Ramanjaneyulu Counsel for the respondents: Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in forfeiting the EMD amount paid by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri R.Ramanjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.WVS.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC representing the respondents. In response to a tender notification issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner has filed his tender for allotment of shop No.8 at D Block of Kurnool –2, Kurnool Bus Station, for running a hotel. Along with his tender, the petitioner paid EMD amount of Rs.45,000/-. The said tender was not considered by the respondents on the ground that it was incomplete as the petitioner failed to offer any amount in the tender form. An Office Order was issued on 16-01-2010, by respondent No.1, wherein the above-mentioned fact was mentioned and the petitioner’s tender was rejected by forfeiting the EMD amount of Rs.45,000/-. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. When this Writ Petition came up for hearing on 12- 07-2010, this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents to produce the tender form filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, today, the learned Standing Counsel has produced the record containing the tender form filed by the petitioner. A perusal of the said tender form shows that the petitioner has kept column No.5 “Monthly License Fees Offered” blank, without quoting the lease amount. Condition No.7 of the tender conditions, which are available in the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel, reads as under: “The EMD of the Tenderer shall be forfeited under the following circumstances: a….. b…. c. When incomplete Tender form is submitted or Tender form with preconditions or additional conditions submitted.” The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-mentioning of the amount is neither deliberate nor intentional, but the same was a mistake. In my opinion, this submission of the learned Counsel does not merit acceptance. While tender notification is an invitation for offer, the tender is in the nature of an offer. Thus, the very purpose of filing a tender is to make an offer by the tenderer for consideration by the employer. Such being the purpose of filing a tender, it is incomprehensible that a tenderer forgets to make his offer in the tender. Failure to make an offer constitutes filing of incomplete tender form within the meaning of the above-reproduced clause and therefore, forfeiture of the EMD is perfectly in consonance with the above tender clause. On the premises as above, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.3709 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 27th July, 2010 lur