THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.30 of 2011 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation, the 1st respondent herein, issued a notification dated 17-09-2010, inviting tenders from interested persons for construction of godowns at various places in the State, for being used by the Food Corporation of India, and to be managed by the 1st respondent. Palakol in West Godavari District with capacity of 25,000 metric tonnes, was one such place. The petitioner, the 3rd respondent and certain others have submitted their tenders. The 1st respondent has chosen the 3rd respondent, for construction of a godown at Palakol. The petitioner challenges the selection of the 3rd respondent, mainly on the ground that the place chosen by the 3rd respondent is outside the limits of Palakol. He contends that, once the 1st respondent has indicated the place, where the godown must be constructed, it is totally impermissible for them to permit construction of it, at a different place. It is also stated that the place chosen by the 3rd respondent is far away from various rice mills in and around Palakol, and that the 1st respondent has to incur additional expenditure towards payment of transport charges. Other grounds are also urged. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by the respondent No.1, on the one hand, and respondent No.2, on the other hand. According to them, Palakol is mentioned as a location, and it does not connote, either the limits of any Municipality, or those, of the revenue village. According to them, the predominant consideration for selection of a tenderer is the rate quoted by him, and that the rates quoted by the petitioner were much more than, those quoted by the 3rd respondent. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B. Anjaneyulu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Smt. K. Sesharajyam, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. In the tender notification dated 17-09-2010, tenders were invited for construction of godowns at, as many as 14 locations. The godown proposed at Palakol location is, of the capacity of 25,000 metric tonnes. The use of the word ‘location’ in the tender notice has its own significance. It does not signify the limits of any local body or revenue village. It is almost elastic, and can be stretched, beyond a point, to cover the areas, which otherwise do not form part of the place, mentioned as location. The effort appears to be, to broadly indicate the area, where the godowns are to be constructed. This becomes necessary, particularly, in view of the fact that vast area is needed for construction of godowns and that the same cannot be easily procured within the limits of a local body or revenue village, jut like that. It may be true that the place chosen by the 3rd respondent was outside the limits of Municipality or revenue village of Palakol. However, once the respondents 1 and 2 are satisfied, that the place is suitable, from the point of view of providing railway and road transport, no one can take objection to it. The tenderers are required to quote the rates, which they intend to charge for storage of food grains, per tonne, per month in the godowns, proposed to be constructed. It is only those tenderers, who have shown the place of construction, to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent, that would be considered, at the stage of selection, on the basis of rates. It is not in dispute that the petitioner quoted Rs.5.50 ps., per tonne, per month, whereas the 3rd respondent quoted Rs.4.65 ps. The other two tenderers quoted the rates viz., Rs.5.67 ps., and Rs.5.91 ps., respectively. It ultimately emerged that the rate quoted by the 3rd respondent was 85 ps., per tonne, per month, less than the one, offered by the petitioner. When such is the variation, the respondents 1 and 2 were certainly justified in choosing the 3rd respondent. The factors, such as, the proximity of mills to the proposed godowns, cannot be applied with mathematical precision. If a particular mill in the area is far away from the place, where the 3rd respondent proposed to construct the godown, it is but natural that the rice mills, that are located on the other side, would be far away from the place, where the petitioner intends to construct. The 1st respondent has to take the various factors into account, and ultimately arrive at a conclusion, which is in their interest. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31-01-2011. KO