THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.21328 OF 2009 Dated: 19.03.2010 1. M/s. Sony Enterprises, rep. by its Sole Proprietor Smt. P. Meena Kumari and another. … Petitioners Vs. 1. The Regional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Guntur Region, Guntur, Guntur Dist., And others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.21328 OF 2009 ORDER : The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘Corporation’) issued a tender notice dated 25.06.2009 inviting sealed tenders from manpower agencies, registered with the Labour Department, to provide personnel to carry out various works of Traffic Guides in 30 depots of Guntur region of the Corporation. The petitioners herein claim to have purchased tenders in respect of all the depots and submitted their bids together with the earnest money deposit as specified in the notification. However, the petitioners were disqualified in respect of all the 30 depots on the ground that they failed to add the inspection charges at the rate of 0.18% for each Traffic Guide. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents in rejecting the tenders of the petitioners, this writ petition is filed. It is contended by the petitioners that as per the guidelines in vogue those tenderers who are not holding EPF code alone are required to quote their respective tenders for supply of manpower by adding 0.18% on the wages towards inspection charges. Since all the petitioners are having EPF code, it is claimed that it is not necessary for them to add the inspection charges of 0.18% and therefore the action of the Corporation in disqualifying the petitioners from the tender process is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, including the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. It is not in dispute that the tender notice dated 25.6.2009 was issued in terms of the guidelines formulated by the Corporation in Circular dated 19.03.2009 for the purpose of outsourcing the activity of providing Traffic Guides at traffic generating points at Bus-stations. As per Clause 3 (a) (e) of the guidelines, if any contractor quotes less than the value specified such bidder shall automatically be disqualified. In the tender notice dated 25.6.2009, the value of the work at each traffic point including the 7% profit margin to the contractors having PF account has been specifically mentioned. That apart, the number of traffic points and also the candidates required at each traffic point have also been specified. Condition No.4 of the tender notice made it clear that the floor rate of each depot will be calculated taking into consideration the administrative and inspection charges as well as the minimum wages at the rate of Rs.2,886/- per month over and above the 7% profit margin. Condition No.7 further made it clear that if any contractor quotes less than such value the quotations will automatically be lapsed. It is explained in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that all the tenderers who had quoted less than the amounts specified in the tender notice were disqualified. The claim of the petitioners that those contractors who are having EPF code were not required to quote the inspection charges at the rate of 0.18% per Traffic Guide was denied and it is stated that only those bids which included the inspection charges were considered by the Tender Committee. As noticed above, all the terms and conditions were clearly mentioned in the tender notice dated 25.6.2009 and there was no ambiguity at all. Absolutely no case could be made out to substantiate the claim of the petitioners that the contractors having EPF code can make their bids without adding the inspection charges of 0.18%. At any rate, as held by the Supreme Court in M/s. G.J. FERNANDEZ v. STAE OF KARNATAKA[1] the interference by this Court is not warranted merely because the tender condition can be construed differently. Particularly when the Tender Inviting Authority has been consistently and bona fide interpreting the standards prescribed by it in a particular manner and processed all the tenders received on the basis of such interpretation, the interference by this Court in exercise of judicial review is unwarranted. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned action of the respondents in rejecting the tenders of the petitioners cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dt. 19.03.2010 gbs [1] AIR 1990 SC 958