HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10195 of 2011 Date: July 19, 2011 Between: 1. G. Srinivas & 3 others … Petitioners and 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (A State Government undertaking) Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director & 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.10195 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioners assail the action of the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Guntur District, in awarding the contract for door delivery of LPG cylinders to consumers in Tenali, Guntur District, to the fourth respondent by resorting to a draw of lots on 21.3.2011. 2. A tender notice in this regard had been issued by the respondent-Corporation on 08.3.2011 inviting sealed tenders from interested bidders. The terms and conditions applicable to award of the subject contract were also specified separately. It is the case of the petitioners that the sealed tenders were opened on 16.3.2011 and it emerged that the petitioners and the fourth respondent quoted the same lowest rate of Rs.3/- towards transportation charges. According to the petitioners, it was decided by the respondent-Corporation to award the contract by conducting a draw of lots, but the said draw was not conducted on 16.3.2011 itself. According to them, they were informed over telephone to attend on 21.3.2011 for the draw of lots. At that time, they claim to have raised certain objections with regard to the procedure followed for conducting the draw of lots, but without considering the same, the respondent-Corporation drew lots and awarded the contract to the fourth respondent. They claim that they submitted a representation on 30.3.2011 to the respondent- Corporation highlighting the irregularities committed in the conduct of the draw of lots. Apprehending that the award of the contract in favour of the fourth respondent would be approved by the respondent-Corporation without considering their objections, they approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. By order dated 25.4.2011, this Court directed status quo to be maintained pending further orders. 4. The respondent-Corporation filed a counter stating that the tenders submitted pursuant to the notice dated 08.3.2011 were opened on 21.3.2011 and all the tenderers had quoted Rs.3/- per cylinder as transportation charges. It is further stated that all the tenderers accepted before the District Tender Committee that a draw of lots may be held to select one amongst them as they were all evaluated as the lowest tenderers. This draw was said to have been conducted, whereby the fourth respondent was appointed as the contractor for transportation of LPG cylinders to the door steps of the consumers in Tenali Town by proceedings dated 19.4.2011 itself, long prior to the passing of the Status Quo orders by this Court on 25.4.2011. The fourth respondent, despite service of notice, chose not to put in an appearance through counsel or in person before this Court. 5. Perusal of the Tender Notice dated 08.3.2011 reflects that the submitted sealed tenders were proposed to be opened on 16.3.2011 at 4.00 p.m. According to the petitioners, the tenders were in fact opened on the said day, but the draw of lots took place on 21.3.2011. The counter of the respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, states that the tenders were opened not on 16.3.2011, but on 21.3.2011. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the procedure stipulated in the tender notice was deviated from, if at all, in this regard. Further, the terms and conditions stipulated by the respondent-Corporation, in so far as the award of this contract is concerned, states that the Corporation reserved the right to award the contract to the lowest tenderer (L1) basing on the rates quoted in the tender or to conduct negotiations with L-1 only (Clause 23). Clause 24 stipulated that no tenderer is permitted to quote less than Rs.3/- per cylinder towards transportation charges. The terms and conditions do not postulate any procedure for a draw of lots in the event there was more than one lowest tenderer. As the respondent-Corporation devised a new procedure not contemplated in the terms and conditions by resorting to a draw of lots on the ground that there were as many as 6 lowest tenders, it ought to have maintained a full and proper record of the same. The learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation was accordingly directed to produce the record. Though the matter was adjourned twice on this ground, the record was not placed before the Court. Today, the learned counsel produced a set of photocopies, stated to be extracts from the record of the respondent-Corporation. 6. Perusal of the same reflects that there was no record maintained with regard to the alleged consent obtained from the participating tenderers for drawal of lots to award the contract to one amongst them. There is also no record of the actual drawal of lots and the result thereof, duly attested by the participating tenderers. 7. In that view of the matter, the action of the respondent- Corporation in following an impromptu procedure, transgressing the stipulated terms and conditions without even maintaining an official record of the same, cannot be countenanced. Being an instrumentality of the State, the respondent-Corporation is expected to act responsibly while awarding contracts. The casual and informal methodology adopted by the respondent-Corporation in awarding the subject contract without any record and unsupported by any prescribed procedure offends the norms of transparency and fair play in action expected of a State instrumentality. The award of the contract in favour of the fourth respondent is accordingly set aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed. W.P.M.P. No.12561 of 2011 shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: July 19, 2011. BSB