HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED W.A.No.965 of 2011 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 03.11.2011 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.11153 of 2011. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the writ petitioners before the learned single Judge and they challenged the award of as many as 10 contracts for maintenance of toilets at ‘A’ and ‘B’ Class bus stations in Nalgonda District in favour of respondent No.5 in the writ petition, who is the appellant before us. 3. The APSRTC invited bids for maintenance of toilets at ‘A’ and “B’ class bus stations in Nalgonda District by an Advertisement dated 25.10.2010. 4. One of the terms and conditions of the tender notice was that preference will be given to those bidders who hold PF and ESI registrations. 5. The writ petitioners and the appellant as well as some others gave their bids and there is no dispute that the bids given by the writ petitioners were the highest in respect of 6 of the contracts. In respect of the remaining 4 contracts, the highest bidder appears to have withdrawn from the fray after the contract was awarded to the appellant. 6. When the bids were considered by the Tender Evaluation Committee, the case of the writ petitioners as well as the highest bidder in respect of the remaining 4 contracts were not considered since they did not have the necessary PF and ESI registrations. Instead, the contracts were awarded to the appellant, who was not the highest bidder in respect of any of the 10 contracts. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioners preferred a writ petition challenging the award of contracts to the appellant and their elimination on the ground that they do not have the PF and ESI registrations. 8. The question that arose for consideration before the learned single Judge, and which also arises for consideration before us, is with regard to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the tender notice which says that preference will be given to those who hold PF and ESI registrations. 9. It has been held by the learned single Judge (and we are in agreement of this view) that the question of preference would arise if two parties are equal. If two parties are unequal, the question of giving preference to one over the other does not arise. 10. In the present case, the bid given by the writ petitioners (as well as the highest bidders who walked out of the fray) were much higher than the bid given by the appellant in respect of each of the 10 contracts. Under these circumstances, since the bids were unequal, the question of giving preference to the appellant merely because he had PF and ESI registrations is not permissible. By giving preference to the appellant, the official respondents are treating unequals in an equal manner and giving preference to one over the other. This is clearly not permitted by the terms of the tender notice. 11. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the view expressed by the learned single Judge and the direction given by him, namely, to consider the case of the writ petitioners for award of the contracts in respect of 6 of the contracts in which the writ petitioners were the highest bidders. 12. We are also of the opinion that the interests of justice require that the higher bidders, who walked out of the fray in respect of the remaining 4 contracts should be given an opportunity of coming back into the fray since they were eliminated for reasons which do not stand scrutiny. 13. We may note that learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petitioners were not eligible or qualified. We are not going into that question since that issue has not arisen before us. We have no reason to believe that the Tender Evaluation Committee did not look into this matter at the appropriate stage. But since the issue raised by learned counsel for the appellant is seminal and the matter is once again undergoing scrutiny, we would expect the Tender Evaluation Committee to consider the entire issue in the correct perspective including the eligibility of the bidders. 14. A decision in respect of the award of the contracts should be taken within a period of four weeks from today and in any case by 31.12.2010. 15. With the above directions, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of. 16. Interim application also stands disposed of. ____________________ MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMAD, J Date:18.11.2011 sj