IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY WRIT PETITION No.10936 of 2008 Between: V.V.V. Satyanarayana … Petitioner And Regional Manager, APSRTC, Krishna Region, Vijayawada, Krishna District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C. Ramachandra Raju Counsel for the respondent : Sri K. Madhava Reddy SC for APSRTC This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 10936 of 2008 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent issued a tender notification calling for tenders for grant of licence to run stalls in different bus stations. Sl.No.27 of the tender notification pertains to running of Fast Foods and Pre-prepared Non-Veg., parcels at City Bus Terminal, Vijayawada. The said tender notification was published on 28.06.2007. A few days later i.e., on 04.07.2007, the respondent issued a corrigendum and published in the newspaper changing the nature of business to Non-Vegetarian Fast Food (Pre-prepared parcel). Not knowing the issuance of the said corrigendum, the petitioner filed his tender for Fast Foods and Pre-prepared Non- Veg., parcels. Subsequently, the petitioner realized his mistake and made representation on 26.07.2007, wherein he categorically stated that he filed his tender without being aware of the corrigendum notification, that when the tenders were opened by the committee, they asked him whether he was aware of the corrigendum, he replied to them in negative and pleaded that he was not aware of the said corrigendum and requested that if he is permitted to run the stall as per the original notification, he will be able to carry on the business, otherwise the EMD may be refunded to him. Despite the said representation having been received by the respondent, the contract was awarded by him through proceedings dated 16.08.2007 at Rs.1,57,777=77 ps and the petitioner was called upon to pay the balance amount and enter into an agreement failing which the EMD amount will be forfeited. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner filed another representation on 09.10.2007, wherein he reiterated his earlier stand and requested the respondent to cancel his tender and refund the EMD. As the respondent has not acceded to the petitioner’s request, he filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Law Officer of the APSRTC (for short, “the Corporation”), it is inter alia admitted that the petitioner submitted his tender for running Fast Food and Non- Vegetarian parcels in City Bus Terminal, Vijayawada without knowing corrigendum notification dated 02.07.2007 published on 04.07.2007. It is, however, stated therein that as the petitioner’s bid was the highest of the two bids received by the Corporation, the same was accepted and as he failed to enter into the agreement by paying the balance amount, his EMD was forfeited. I have carefully heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the Corporation and perused the record. The fact that the petitioner is not aware of the corrigendum notification is amply admitted by the respondent. In proceedings dated 16.08.2007, the respondent clearly stated that in spite of corrigendum notification, which clearly defined the nature of the business, the petitioner wrongly wrote the nature of the business as “Fast Food and Non-Vegetarian Parcels”, which is not accepted by the tender committee. He further stated that however, the tender committee considered the petitioner’s tender for “Non-Veg. Fast Foods (Pre-Prepared Parcels)” as corrected vide corrigendum notification and also as per the terms and conditions supplied to him along with the tender form and accepted his offer against the modified nature of business. It is rather interesting to read the relevant portion of order dated 16.08.2007 by which the petitioner’s tender was accepted, which is as follows: “In spite of corrigendum notification 2nd cited under reference and also the nature of business is clearly defined in the terms and conditions supplied to you along with tender form, you have wrongly written the nature of business as “Fast Foods & Non-Veg. Parcels” which is not accepted by the Tender Committee. However, the Tender Committee considered your tender form for “Non- Veg. Fast Foods (Pre-prepared Parcels” as corrected vide corrigendum notification vide ref. 2nd cited and also as per the terms and conditions supplied to you along with tender form in which the nature of business was clearly defined.” In my considered view, the Corporation committed a patent illegality in not rejecting the petitioner’s tender, which was not in conformity with its tender notification, as amended by the corrigendum notification. It should not have proceeded further when it found that the tender does not accord with the modified nature of business reflected in the corrigendum or at least when the petitioner made a categorical request through his representation submitted on 26.07.2007, wherein he fairly disclosed his ignorance of the corrigendum notification. The respondent being a statutory Corporation running public utility service should have been responsible enough to respond to the situation where the petitioner has committed an innocent mistake in filing his tender without knowing about the change of nature of the business, as notified in its corrigendum. The Corporation should not have taken undue advantage of the petitioner’s ignorance and mulct him with the responsibility of running the canteen and forfeiting the deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- on the purported ground that he backed out. The whole action of the respondent suffers from patent arbitrariness and irrational approach. Therefore, order dated 16.08.2007 by which the petitioner was awarded with the contract is set aside. The next question to be decided is, what should be the relief, which the petitioner deserves to be granted. The petitioner is a small trader, who parted with a substantial amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which is lying with the respondent for more than two years. A bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner was sought to be taken undue advantage by the Corporation. The petitioner was made to suffer the loss on account of deprivation of his money of Rs.2,00,000/- for a substantial period. The Corporation is therefore liable to recompense for the loss, which the petitioner would have inevitably suffered. Therefore, interests of justice would be met if the respondent is directed to refund the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.14244 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.07.2009 ES