HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 14016 of 2009 DATED: 17.09.2009 Between: B. Balakishan .. Petitioner And Govt. of A.P., rep. By its Secretary A.P. Social Welfare Residential Educational Institution Society Joint Collector & Chairman The Principal, APSWRS/Jr. College Rural Infrastructure Dev. Organization .. Respondents O R D E R:- In pursuance of the Tender Notification dated 04.06.2009 issued by the 3rd respondent calling for tenders from experienced tenderers, for rendering catering services with provisions and manpower at Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Society/Jr. College (Boys) at Uppalwai village, Nizamabad District, for the academic year 2009-2010, the petitioner and the 5th respondent submitted their applications. While so, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector & Chairman, without verifying the records and without following any procedure, issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.06.2009 allotting the tender work to the 5th respondent-organization, which does not even have the requisite qualifications for participating in the tender process. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent to allot the tender work in his favour. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner quoted Rs. 0.99 for catering services per boarder per day, while the 5th respondent quoted Rs.0.90, and as the rate quoted by the 5th respondent is the lowest, the tender work was awarded in his favour. One M. Sanjay, working as Assistant in the 5th respondent- organization, filed counter affidavit inter alia denying the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that the 5th respondent is not represented by him, but is represented by its President, namely M.B. Choudary. That the petitioner failed to implead the President of the organization as party- respondent to the writ petition. The President has only authorized him to submit the tender for the catering contract on behalf of the 5th respondent-organization. He contended that except submitting the tender form to the 4th respondent, he has nothing to do with the merits of the tender and affairs of the organization and that the President of the 5th respondent organization, is the person competent to deal with the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 5th respondent has no experience in catering business, but the 3rd respondent in gross violation of Condition No. 17(a) of the Tender Schedule, which requires three years experience in catering business, had allotted the tender work in favour of the 5th respondent, which is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that as per Condition No.1 of the Tender Schedule, school shall be the unit for awarding contract, and no tenderer will be allowed to render his services for more than one school, unless the tenderer is a reputed organization, but contrary to the said condition, the 3rd respondent has allotted the tender work to the 5th respondent to render catering services for six schools. Hence, he prayed that the allotment of contract in favour of the 5th respondent be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare for respondent No.3 and 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, and perused the material placed on record. As per Condition No. 17(a) of the Tender Schedule, a tenderer is required to submit experience certificate certifying to the effect that he has been in catering business for at least three preceding years. It is the case of the petitioner that that the 5th respondent does not have three years experience in catering business, and in spite of their not having three years experience in catering business, yet the 3rd respondent has awarded the tender work to the 5th respondent. The fact that the 5th respondent does not possess three years experience in catering business, and as such, he is ineligible to submit tender, much less be awarded the tender work, is neither disputed by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the counter filed on their behalf nor is disputed by the 5th respondent, and the only justification sought to be given by the 1st and 2nd respondents, for award of tender work in favour of the 5th respondent is that he has quoted Rs. 0.90 per boarder per day, which is the lowest and lower than the price quoted by the petitioner, which is Rs. 0.99 per boarder per day. Since the 5th respondent did not possess the three years experience in catering business, he could not have been awarded the tender work, much less for six schools. The award of tender work in favour of the 5th respondent is not only violative of Condition No. 17(a) of the Tender Schedule, but is also violative of Condition No. 1 of the Tender Schedule, which provides that a “school shall be unit for awarding the contract to catering services, and no tenderer will be allowed to render his services for more than one school, unless the tenderer/agency is a reputed organization like ISCON, Satya Sai Seva Organization, Nandi Foundation etc. Since a school is treated as a unit, and the 5th respondent not being an organization of repute, it could not have been awarded the tender work for more than one school. Though in the counter filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, it is sated that by the deponent, namely Mr. M. Sanjay that he is working as Assistant in the office of the 5th respondent-Organization, which is represented by its President M.B.Choudary and that the petitioner failed to implead the President of the organization as party-respondent in the writ petition and that the President had merely authorized him to file tender for catering contract on behalf of the 5th respondent- organization, the fact remains, in the Tender Form submitted on behalf of the 5th respondent, the photograph of M. Sanjay is affixed and he has also signed it. This apart, according to the own admission of the deponent, he has submitted the same under authorization given by the President of the 5th respondent. That being so, he cannot contend that the petitioner failed to implead the President of the 5th respondent as party-respondent to the writ petition. Be that as it may, since the tender in favour of the 5th respondent was awarded by the 3rd respondent vide the impugned proceedings, in gross violation of the Condition Nos. 1 and 17(a) of the Tender Schedule, the same cannot be sustained, and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent awarding tender work in favour of the 5th respondent, for rendering catering services in six schools, is set aside. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 17.09.2009 bcj